1921-03-03

[Stage Direction]
ADDRESS IN KEHLY Consideration of the Motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the Session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Campbell, resumed from Tuesday, March 1.
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmoreland) :: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment of the debate last night I was referring to the amendment that had been moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That amendment may well be divided into two parts: first that the present Government has not the confidence of this House; and second that it has not the confidence of the country. Though the leader of the

-Opposition might well have had a certain degree of confidence in his statement that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House, the hon. gentleman having been out of politics for a number of years, he may not have given close attention to the traditions of the Tory party in these recent days. It is the old story-What we have we'll hold," and it is quite true of the Tory party of this Dominion. They are holding power to-day because of the election in 1917, of which election and the manner in which it was conducted much has been said during the progress of this debate. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in reply to the leader of the Opposition said: We stand upon the letter of the constitution and will continue to hold office until the expiration of the full term of five years. I reminded my right hon. friend last night that there were two elements in our constitution- the written law and the unwritten law. 1 grant that my right hon. friend is justified in arguing from the letter of the constitution that he is entitled to carry on for the full term. I submit that unless the Government is convinced by reasonable evidence that it has the confidence of the people as well as the confidence of Parliament, it is their duty to appeal to the people at the very earliest opportunity. That, to my mind, is the essence of responsible Government. It is all very well for my hon. friends opposite to say1 that they have a majority in Parliament, and that, therefore, they are legally entitled to carry on, but having regard to the moral aspect of the situation, they must come to the conclusion that the people are not satisfied with the present Administration and that they should have an opportunity of saying so by their vote.
My right hon. friend says:	We shall be
guided by the letter of the constitution. If he stands only upon the letter of the constitution, he might as well have said, in the formation of his cabinet:	I will
select all my cabinet ministers from Ontario; I will carry on the Government of the whole country with a ministry selected from one particular province. But that would not be according to the unwritten law of our constitution; it would not be according to the moral law of our constitution, because the understanding is that each Prime Minister shall select the members of his cabinet from the different provinces of Canada, not from one province only. We

must, therefore, consider both the letter and the spirit of the constitution in connection with the question which is now before the House.
My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), who spoke yesterday afternoon, took an attitude entirely different from that of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House: He said that this Government has nothing whatever to do with the government that went out on July last; that a new Government was formed, and that that Government is responsible only for what it does from now until such time as it appeals to the people. Apparently my hon. friend did not hear the remarks made by the Prime Minister in this debate, nor could he have done the right hon. gentleman the honour of reading his speech. The Prime Minister took exactly opposite ground. He said:	We are the same old
Government; we are carrying on as part of the government which existed prior to my acceptance of office. These two hon. gentlemen, therefore, are in direct disagreement in regard to the constitution and the character of the Government.
Besides being responsible to this Parliament, the Government must be responsible to the people. I am bound to say that it is not very strong evidence for a member on the other side to say:	I have consulted
my constituents, and I know they are not in favour of an election; or for a member on this side to say:	I have consulted my
constituents, and they are in favour of an election. You cannot come to any very definite conclusion in a matter of this kind if that is all the evidence that is forthcoming. But when you travel over the country from east to west and from north to south, and hear nothing else-on the trains, in the hotels, in the church yards, or elsewhere-but condemnation of the present Administration, it seems to me that the state of public feeling thus disclosed must be admitted. I have been able during the recess to interview a very large number of the electors of my constituency and of my province. I have heard a great many people speak about this matter. I have read the papers of our part of the country, and I find that whether the paper is Liberal or Conservative, the opinion is that we should have an election to clear up the situation that has been brought about by this conglomeration which is found in, the seats on the other side of the House.
We should, Mr. Speaker, have a general election on any occasion when a matter of
very great moment arises upon which the people should have the right to speak. We have a limited term of Parliament; at certain intervals the people must be consulted. But when any particular emergency arises -a change of policy or a change in the personnel of the Government-the people should have an opportunity to say whether or not the Government have their confidence. In 1911 an occasion of that kind arose, when the Parliament had been in existence only three years. A very important question came before the House-the reciprocity agreement that had been entered into between the Government of this country and the Government of the United States. When the agreement was brought down a debate arose and continued for many weeks and months. From the speeches delivered during that debate, which I have read, I think that no one offered stronger arguments in support of the reciprocity agreement than the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), who addressed the House yesterday afternoon. His speech on that occasion, Sir, is worthy of the perusal of any hon. gentleman, disclosing, as it does, what his ideas were at that time with regard to a downward tread in the tariff. What has brought about the remarkable change of mind on the part of my hon. friend? Surely it has not been the conditions? Surely, Sir, it is not because he believes that the people of Canada are more opposed now to a downward trend in the tariff than they were in 1911? Surely not, because we are getting the answer day by day and week by week; the results of byelections held during the recess have shown that the people of Canada insist upon a tariff which shall be characterized by a downward trend. My hon. friend surely must know that that is the feeling which prevails in the country at the present time.
In the elections of 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier, who appealed to the people on the reciprocity question, was defeated, and from that day until the present we have had no reasonable appeal to the people on the question of what government should control the destinies of this country. My hon. friends say that we had an election in 1917, and that is true. A question has arisen in regard to that election that we cannot decide here; everyone must have his own opinion in regard to it. But we have some evidence that the election which was held after the formation of the Union Government, was not an election upon the policy of the Government; it was what was



known as a war election, and the Government was a war government. The formation of that government came about when the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) decided to appeal to the people.
The year 1916 was the year in which, according to our Constitution, the elections should have been held, and the Conservative party of that day, realizing then, as I believe they realize now, that they had not the slightest hope of carrying the country at that time, asked the leader of the Opposition to consent to an extension of Parliament for one year. The war was then in progress, and the situation in Canada was very serious, and not a single word was said in regard to Union Government when the Opposition permitted our Conservative friends to carry on. In 1917, a change came about. My hon. friends, then seeing more clearly than they did in 1916, that it would be impossible for them to carry this country, came with their hats in their hands, knocking at the doors of Liberal members and asking them to form a Union Government to carry on the war. A number of our friends joined them. With the same degree of assurance that has been shown by hon. gentlemen who left the Liberal party in order to join and support Union Government, I could give equally good reasons for the stand I took in not giving my support to Union Government and its successor. I did not believe Union Government was necessary at that time; I do not believe it is necessary now. I have no quarrel with our friends who left the Liberal party and joined the forces of the Government; their action is a matter for themselves to consider. While that Union Government remained in existence, it was a matter for themselves and their conscience what they should do with regard to it. Now that Union Government has absolutely gone, now that it is dissipated into thin air and a new Government has been formed, it is entirely up to them and their consciences to say what their duty is in regard to the changed situation.
I have listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure, and, I may say, with amusement, to some of the arguments adduced by hon. gentlemen .opposite in regard to the situation. A number of speakers who have delivered addresses on this subject have told us, and, through Parliament, have told the country, why they are supporting the present Administration. For instance, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said that

he was supporting the present Administration, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) had nailed his colours to the mast and was standing for the continuation of high protection in this country. He was followed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and a number of other hon. gentlemen, whose speeches I have before me, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in quoting from them. One group of the supporters of the Administration say: "We are supporters of the present Administration, because it is the Government and party of high protection, of continuing in force in the Dominion the highest possible protection in the interest of Canadan manufacturers;" but the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), who occupied the attention of the House the other day, told us that he was supporting the present Government because it was a Government of low tariff in this country. He quoted page after page to show that the tariff of the present Administration was lower than that of the old Liberal party, and he said that he was a Liberal and was supporting this Government because it was bringing into force a Liberal tariff and platform in Canada. What is true of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is true of a number of other hon. gentlemen who spoke in this debate. Through different courses, different arguments and different avenues, these hon. gentlemen came to the one conclusion, namely, that the best course was to keep the Government, and, therefore, themselves, in power for another year or two, whereas if they went to the country, they would not come back.
At the time Union Government was formed, a number of very estimable gentlemen joined that Government; a few of them still continue with it, and the others have retired. One of the first to retire from that Government was the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). I have no doubt that he, along with other hon. gentlemen who had formerly been allied with the Liberal party, joined that Government, according to the evidence that has been given by himself and other members who have since retired, for a certain purpose and a certain definite length of time. When that time expired, they concluded that their contract had expired, and they left the Government. Ever since that hon. gentleman conscientiously left that Government, as I believe he conscientiously entered it, the guns of criticism

of my hon. friends opposite have been levelled at him because, as they say, he did not do anything and did not continue to carry on in the interest of the people while he was a member of the Government. That is a most unjust and unwarranted criticism of the hon. member for Marquette. Soon after his retirement, the then Minister of Public Works made up his mind that he could no longer remain in the Government led by the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and he retired and took a position as chairman of the Railway Board. Another hon. gentleman, one who had taken a very prominent part in the administration of affairs of this country-and personally I want to give him credit for the great work he did as Minister of Finance in the Government at the time-worked with and remained in the Government until after the war, and then made up his mind that he would retire. He delivered an address in this House, a sort of valedictory, and he wound up that eloquent speech by saying to his friends: "In so far as I am concerned, I am going out of the Government, but I advise you, my friends, to carry on, carry on."
That expression has since become a byword in the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friends opposite did not require any advice from the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) to carry on; it was their intention to carry on until the people, when an opportunity arose, kicked them out of office. My hon. friend, when he was advising his friends to carry on, retired himself and took no further responsibility as regards the Government. His action reminds me of the story of that eminent general who, after he had ranged his soldiers all in line when a battle was imminent, gave them this instruction: "You must face the foe and remain until your last shell is fired-and then run for your lives. I, being a little footsore and weary, will run now." My hon. friend, when he gave his advice to his friends to carry on, had not the hardihood, the courage, to face the people of this Dominion, to attempt to carry on the Government, when he knew the people of Ontario and the other provinces were absolutely opposed to the Government carrying on and that the Government' did not have the confidence of the people in carrying on.
The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Mewburn) also withdrew; so did the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), and the hon. member for Durham
29i
(Mr. Rowell). If we can believe the interviews as reported in the press, the hon. member for Durham has withdrawn from this House entirely except that he will be here to guide my right hon. friend when international matters are before the House.
I am sure my hon. friends must appreciate the assistance that is promised them by the hon. member for Durham, and I suppose that after this session the hon. member will be able to retire, having sufficient confidence in the ability of the Minister of Justice to deal with international affairs when they come up in the House. These hon. gentlemen have all retired. Now, the question at once arises: if these gentlemen were right in retiring from the Government, were right in the statements they made in regard to the situation, were right in saying they had fulfilled their contract, are not the other gentlemen who went into the Government under the same contract staying beyond their contract? Are they not overstaying tenants, and should not the people be given an opportunity of speaking on the question whether they should remain or not?
My hon. friend from Brantford used the argument that he was not going to support this amendment because he did not believe in letting old things go for something new. He did not believe in letting go of power, and letting anybody else come in to govern the affairs of this country. He did not believe in giving the people an opportunity of speaking their mind. He wanted this Government to carry on as long as possible, without giving the people an opportunity of deciding upon the very question that is before this Parliament. My hon. friend says: We are in power now, and I want the Government to hold on to power; the people should be willing for us to do so. My hon. friend must know that the people of this Dominion are simply crying for an opportunity to let this Government go. Perhaps my hon. friend has heard the story of the two Irishmen who went out to catch wildcats. One decided to go up the tree and drive the cat down, leaving the other man on the ground to catch the cat. Well, he drove the cat down, and the man below grabbed it. After a while the Irishman up in the tree says: "Do you want me to come down and help hold it?" "No," said the other, "come down and help me let it go." That is exactly what the people of this country want; they want to let this Government go, and I believe they should be given the opportunity at an early date.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have differed considerably in their reasons why they

should support the Government. One says he will support it because it is a government of high tariff; another says he will support it because it is a government of low tariff; another says we should not go to the country now because owing to the very strong feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction in the country, the people would not be sufficiently sane to cast a reasonable vote in an election; another hon. gentleman says, the government should not go to the people, because it has guided the ship of state so well during its term of office that there is no unrest in this country, and therefore we do not want an election. That is how my hon. friends differ in their reasoning, but the reasoning of them all leads to the same conclusion, and that is to hold on to office.
A responsible government, as its name implies, must mean responsibility to the people, and no government is justified in carrying on the affairs of the country without having reasonable cause to believe they have the support and enjoy the confidence of the people of the country. The ministers who occupy seats in the Cabinet should represent the feelings of the people of their constituencies and the provinces they represent. Let us see for a moment whether or not the members of the present Administration can have any hope or reason to believe they enjoy the confidence of the people and the sections of the country they represent.
Let me take first my right hon. friend, who represents a western constituency, and hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). Is it possible that either of these gentlemen would have the courage to say that they represent the feeling of the people of the West on the tariff question in this country? Is it possible that my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization could say he represents the present feeling of the people of Saskatchewan in regard to public affairs in this country? In view of the reception he got when going through his native province a few weeks ago, where in spite of the high positions he had occupied in that province for so many years he could not get a hearing to discuss the problems of the day, is it possible that he would have the courage to stand up in this Parliament or elsewhere and say that in the government of this country he expressed or reflected the feeling of the people of Saskatchewan? Not so, and therefore I say that if my hon. friend understood

what I believe to be his moral and bounden duty under our constitution he would go back to his province and hand in his resignation saying: I served you during the war, as I promised, but now you have not confidence in the Government I am supporting, and therefore I cannot continue in office any longer. That would be the brave and courageous thing to do. But no, my hon. friend is tenaciously hanging on to office, in spite of his friends in the province of Saskatchewan or anywhere else in this Dominion.
Would my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney), a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, say that in his position in the Government to-day he reflects the majority view of the people of the county of Yarmouth in the old province of Nova Scotia? Does he say, or would any one believe from his actions, that the people of the county of Yarmouth are satisfied to see my hon. friend supporting this Tory government when he for years was a part and parcel of the Liberal party in that county? While my hon. friend was elected to suport the Union Government I am very much mistaken, from the reports I hear, if he reflects the majority opinion of the old Liberal county of Yarmouth in supporting this present Tory Administration.
Let us take another example. Would any one in this Dominion or wherever the English language is used or known, say that for one moment the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) enjoyed the confidence of the people of the province of Quebec? Not a constituency in the province of Quebec would elect the hon. gentleman; yet, according to the letter of the constitution, that gentleman is forced upon the people of the province of Quebec and has to be their representative in the government of this country. It is absolutely opposed to the unwritten law of our constitution, and it should not be tolerated for one moment in a democratic country or in a free parliament.
Now I want to say a word or two about my hon. friend from the city of St. John, the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore), who, I regret, is not in his seat. It was very unfortunate for the province of New Brunswick, of which province I have the honour to represent one constituency, that it was so long without Cabinet representation. The interests of the Maritime Provinces were disregarded for many, many months by this

Government until there was a very strong agitation down there for increased representation in the Government. My hon. friend from St. John was selected. Personally, I have no fault to find with the hon. gentleman, although I may say that after being elected for the great city of St. John, where, for the purpose of carrying the constituency, he promised everything in the way of harbour improvements that could possibly be thought of. He is not satisfied	with	that but	goes	down	to thesister city of Halifax, and in a day or two builds a new railway station at	the	terminals in	that city.
He flits away to Cape Breton, nationalizes the Port of Sydney, and on his way back stops off for Sunday afternoon in the garden city of Moncton, where he builds a post office. Elsewhere in New Brunswick he evinces great interest in the public welfare. I sincerely wish my hon. friend every success in his endeavour to do something to further the interests of the Maritime Provinces, and in some degree to compensate for the negligence that has been shown in regard to that part of Canada during the past few years by this Government. One would naturally suppose that I should compliment my hon. friend and say that at least one member has the support and confidence of his own constituency in the province of New Brunswick. I regret, however, that the hon. gentleman is only a living example of the proverb that evil communications corrupt good manners. He has been only a few months in the company of his colleagues opposite, and we find now that the people of New Brunswick, and particularly of the City of St. John, have lost confidence even in himself. I regret that fact very much, because I had hoped that my hon. friend would make a strong minister, would bring light to bear upon the Government, and would see to it that the province of New Brunswick and the Maritime Provinces as a whole would get some reasonably decent treatment from the Government in the way of expenditure on public works.
But, Sir, I have in my hand a newspaper clipping which I shall read to the House. I have no desire to detain the House at any length reading newspaper extracts, because I have not always the highest regard for what newspapers say, particularly on political matters, for the reason that one party paper will say one thing and another something different; and if I were to quote from a Liberal newspaper, notwithstanding
the truth of the statement I might cite, I should not expect it to have very great effect in this House or in the country. But I hold in my hand an article clipped from a newspaper which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) must realize has been for a great many years one of the strongest influences in the province of New Brunswick along Conservative lines and in the interests of the Conservative party. From the time my hon. friend occupied a seat in Parliament and graced it as one of the representatives of the province, that newspaper has been a Conservative advocate; and while it is under a new title it is but the same newspaper that always gave strong and hearty support to the Conservative party. It gave considerable influential assistance to my hon. friend at the by-election held in St. John a few months ago. But how quickly changes come about! How quickly the people are beginning to see that the Government no longer has the confidence of the Canadian electorate! If hon. members knew the St. John Standard as well as I know it, they would almost blush to think that it should criticise, even in the slightest degree, my hon. friend who now occupies a seat on the Treasury Benches. But it is not satisfied with criticising the Minister of Customs; it goes further and takes to task the Prime Minister himself (Hon. Mr. Meighen) for his conduct of the affairs of the country. Let me read, if I may, an editorial taken from that newspaper under date of Thursday, February 17, only three days after my hon. friend who was elected in the City of St. John took his seat in this House. This editorial is headed: "Indifference or Dishonesty?" You will note the interrogation. It proceeds:
Individual experience is the sure foundation on which may be based any opinion of the business integrity of an individual or organization. And on such basis The Standard has tried and has found wanting those in the employ of the Federal Government, who control the business affairs of this country. Our experience may or may not be a criterion of the whole administration, but it is sufficient to create, in our case at least, a decided impression that the business principles of those now in charge are neither honest nor honourable. Possibly the circumstances leading to such a conclusion are due entirely to the apparent attitude of subordinates in the executive offices. This, however, is difficult of belief, in view of the fact that the circumstances have ben made known in detail to at least three present ministers of the Crown, and that, so far as The Standard has been able to learn, not one of these has taken any definite action toward the application of the first principles of fair play. Apparently these ministers and their subordin-

ates are content to violate their own written contracts, to defraud a business house of payments due on such contracts, to take shelter behind obsolete legislation which can apparently be disregarded for the financial gain of the Government, and by red tape and departmental delay to prevent the transfer to the Court of matters in dispute. The Standard to-day charges the Borden-Meighen administration through its subordinates with violation of written contracts, with unfair and dishonest retention of money due for services performed, and it charges the Secretary of State and the Minister of Railways with failure to perform the duties of their respective offices in bringing to a settlement matters which have repeatedly been referred to them for attention. It asserts, too, that the Premier himself, and the Minister of Customs have been negligent in the same matter, and are, from the experience of The Standard, responsible, though in a lesser degree, for the dishonesty and dishonourable neglect of their subordinates.
If, as is suspected by many, the departmental offices at Ottawa are filled with employes who spend their time in attempting to discredit the present Government, the matter is easy of solution. This, however, is' difficult of belief in view of all the circumstances. And it is increasingly hard to understand-by this paper at least-how such a Government can lay claim to popular support, when its own routine business affairs are marked by such a lack of ordinary honesty or integrity.
If the Premier or any members of his Cabinet are desirous of further information or evidence along this line, The Standard will be pleased to furnish it.
As I said, this editorial is from the leading Conservative newspaper in New Brunswick,-not merely one of the leading newspapers, but the newspaper-and that is the condition of affairs in that province at the present time. If I were so inclined I could take the same paper during the last week or two and read columns of criticism of this Government. I do not purpose to do so, because it deals with a personal matter between the Conservative party and the appointment of an hon. gentleman to the other House. I am not here to criticise the appointment in any way whatever, but I do say that the present Administration has lost the confidence of the people of New Brunswick, as is palpable on every hand and as is fully reflected in the editorial I have just read.
We have been told during this debate that there should be a general election, and many reasons have been advanced in support of this contention as well as against it. Precedents have been cited by hon. gentlemen on both sides, by those, on the one hand, who claim that an election should be held and, on the other hand, by those who argue that an election is unnecessary at the present time. Hon. members have referred for precedents to Eng-

land, to Australia, to New Zealand, and to other Parliaments in their endeavour to convince this Government that they should appeal to the people. I do not intend to go far afield for precedents in this matter; I need not go further than our own Dominion, for the precedent that has been established in our own country is quite good enough for me. It impresses me and must impress hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that the time is now ripe for a general election. Let me review just for a moment the condition of affairs in the Dominion of Canada from the year 1891 to the year 1896. There we had, after the death of Sir John Macdonald, a succession of governments being formed almost every week or every month, and you did not know from day to day when a new government might be formed. But, quite in keeping with Tory doctrines and traditions, they insisted on carrying on from one year to another and in one session, I think in 1896, the very day Parliament was opened seven ministers resigned from the Cabinet simultaneously.
They decided to carry on, and to carry on at all hazards. During those years, and particularly the years 1895 and 1896-any person who remembers that period wiil recall the facts, and if they do not remember all they have to do is to read the history of that time-hard times prevailed, there was unrest, and dissatisfaction. And, Sir, what happened? As my hon. friend from Red Deer so well expressed it yesterday, in 1896 the Government were at last driven to the people-and having been in office fourteen years eleven months and thirty days-one day before the expiration of the term for which Parliament was elected. They were forced to the people, and on the twenty-third of June, 1896, a general election took place. Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power as a result of that general election. Immediately afterwards the people settled down and went to work, and, follow ing 1896, we had the most prosperous times that we have ever had since Confederation.
Sir, the situation to-day in Canada is absolutely on a par with what it was in 1896 when the Tory government of that day were driven to the people. When they appealed to the electorate the people took great pains to drive them out of office and I believe the same fate will befall my hon. friends opposite when they follow that example in the very near future. Now, Sir, you do not want any stronger or any better precedent than the one I have cited. The

people of that day were despondent and discouraged until the opportunity was given them of changing the administration. Irrespective of what the result would he if an election were brought on at the present time, it is principles that count. The Prime Minister says the leader of the Opposition thinks the people of Canada are pining for him to come into office and carry on the affairs of government. Let me say to my right hon. friend that Canada might get along without much pining if he were not in office. It might exist if any hon. gentlemen were not in the House at all. It is not men that count but principles, and the people of Canada at the present time are awaiting the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon principles when a general election takes place.
The Prime Minister says there is no demand for a general election. My hon. friends opposite say: We have consulted our constituents and they do not want an election. They shudder at the thought and raise their hands in holy horror of the idea of an election being brought on at the present time. Well, Sir, there is one class of people that has made no concealment of its feelings in regard to a call for a general election, a class of people whose sentiments should appeal above all others to our patriotic friends opposite-I refer to the returned soldiers. They are demanding an election at the present time. In 1917, when the soldiers in the trenches were calling for assistance, hon. gentlemen opposite placed the Military Service Act upon the statute books of Canada. Instead of the provisions of that Act being carried out as intended, the opposite was the case. A better title for it would have been the Exemptions Act, because instead of securing recruits for our military forces exemptions from service were the order of the day. However, the fact is the returned soldiers are now calling for a general election and surely hon. gentlemen opposite will heed the call. They will not turn a deaf ear to the demand of some four hundred and fifteen thousand men that they should be given an opportunity of expressing themselves at the poll. I hold in my hand, Sir, a copy of a telegram that was sent from this city on the twenty-seventh of May, 1920, by Mr. R. B. Maxwell, Dominion President of the Great War Veterans' Association. The press despatch from which the telegram is taken says:
R. B. Maxwell of Winnipeg, Dominion President of the G.W.V.A. who has been here several days investigating the .political situation, tonight issued the following message to the 776
branches of the Association throughout the Dominion.
The telegram itself reads as follows:
From knowledge gained of political and economic conditions in Canada during three years' effort on the part of the Great War Veterans Association to obtain equitable reconstruction legislation, I deem it my duty to urge upon you the necessity of an early general election. The time has arrived for the people to declare themselves on the vital questions of the day. I therefore call upon you in defence of the basic principles upon which this Association was founded, to assemble in mass meeting with your fellow citizens and secure without delay an unmistakable expression of the wishes of the people in regard to the necessity of a general election.
That message, Sir, went from the President of the Great War Veterans Association who represents seven hundred and seventy-six branches of that organization. Of the five hundred thousand men who went overseas unfortunately some fifty or sixty thousand did not return but the other four hundred and forty thousand, or approximately that number, are back in Canada and they have been knocking at the door of the Government for reasonable treatment. They claim that they have not received the treatment they should have received from the Government, and as a last resort the President of the Association comes forward and sends out his telegram asking the whole of the branches of the organization to get together and demand a general election so that they may have an opportunity of expressing their views through the ballot box, a privilege they have not had for many years in Canada.


Mr. MORPHY (North Perth) :: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall he delighted.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will my hon. friend kindly tell the House how many public meetings were held on the request of Mr. Maxwell that public meetings be held throughout the country? I am told that none were held.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Then why ask the question?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend asked me a question and has supplied the answer himself. Let me say to him that I do not know how many meetings of branches of this organization have been held, but I would ask him if he does not give credence to the telegram sent by Mr. Maxwell, as President of the Great War Veterans Association.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is not the question. I want to know what has been the effect of his appeal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Give the hon. gentleman all the rope he wants.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Answer my question
please.


Mr. BUREAU:: No cross-examination.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not in my possession a report of the doings of the Great War Veterans Association. However, my hon. friend need not attempt to argue that the Great War Veterans Association is not an organization that should not be given every consideration by this Government as well as by the people at large. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this organization is to-day demanding a general election and I say the Government are not doing justice to themselves or to the country when they turn a deaf ear to that demand.
Now, Sir, I had intended to say something about railway facilities in the Maritime Provinces and matters in connection therewith, but I find that I have already spoken at greater length than I intended. Before resuming my seat, however, I wish to return for a moment to the observations of the Minister of Militia last evening. That hon. gentleman took a very great deal of pains to tell the House that the Liberal Party had been broken up and that there was nothing but a remnant of it left.
He took occasion, Sir, to quote some figures to show that that was correct, and he appeared to claim a great deal of credit, and was applauded very vigorously by my hon. friends opposite, in regard to it. I have already referred to the fact that in 1917 a very large number of Liberals supported the Union Government, but in 1919 my hon. friend had the evidence before him in the report of the Liberal Convention held in Ottawa in August of that year that that support had been withdrawn. He told us that we had only two Liberal representatives west of the Great Lakes.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Let me say to my hon. friend that in spite of the fact that we have only two representatives west of the Great Lakes in the House of Commons, we have a strong and virile Liberal party in the great West -in the province from which my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Coloniza-

tion comes and in the neighbouring j>ro-vinces, as was shown at the Liberal convention last August. Would my hon. friend for one moment argue that Hon. T. C. Norris, Hon. Edward Brown and Hon. Dr. R. S. Thornton, who were here representing the province of Manitoba, do not reflect Liberal sentiment in that province? Would my hon. friend say the same in regard to the Premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. George Langley, and Hon. R. J. Gordon, who were here to represent their province at that convention? And would he say that Hon. George Langley has not any following in the province of Saskatchewan at the present time? Mr. Langley was the very man who stood up in that convention and moved the tariff resolutions that became part of the Liberal platform that we are prepared to go to the country on.


Mr. CALDER:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Is the hon. minister speaking in earnest?


James Alexander Calder: Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that Hon. George Langley made the statement that the most unfortunate thing that could happen to Canada would be that the hon. the leader of the Opposition and his friends should come into power?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, I have no knowledge of such a statement, and my hon. friend has no knowledge of it.


James Alexander Calder: Oh, yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He said that about my hon.
friend. I want to say to him, as he presumes to speak for the province of Saskatchewan, that I do not believe he can stand in his place and give me the name of a single Liberal Unionist who supported him in his constituency of Moosejaw in 1917 who will support him to-day-not one man. If he has one name, Sir, let him be courageous enough to give it to the House. I repeat that not one Liberal Unionist who supported my hon. friend in 1917 will follow him to-day.


James Alexander Calder: That is cheap talk.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: You will not find it cheap.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will my hon. friend dare
assert that Hon. John Oliver, Hon. Mr. King and Hon. Mr. Farris, who represented the province of British Columbia at the Liberal convention, did not reflect Liberal

opinion in their province? But let me come down to the Maritime Provinces.


William Cameron Edwards: Do not skip Quebec and Ontario.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend says, "Do not skip Ontario." My hon. friend will be busy enough in Ontario at the next general election. He will he lucky if the party of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) does not carry away so many Tory seats from my hon. friend's party in Ontario that neither he nor any of his associates will again be returned to this House.
But let me go down to the Maritime Provinces. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) took great comfort in saying that the Maritime Provinces had only eleven members here to support the Opposition. Let me say to my hon. friend that from the province of Nova Scotia alone we have to-day four representatives on this side of the House, and if it had not been for the manipulations under the Military Voters' Act we would have nine members from that province. Let me say further in regard to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island: Look well to yourselves and never mind the Liberal party. If my hon. friends will only give the people an opportunity of expressing their views they will very soon see where the representation will come from. They will see that the Maritime Provinces, the great West, and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario will vote want of confidence in this Government with such an overwhelming majority as has never yet been recorded in the history of the Dominion. That is what will happen.
In conclusion, let me say to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, that when he speaks of the "remnants" of the Liberal party, those "remnants," as soon as an appeal is made to the country-and the sooner the better-will be back here doing business at the stand now occupied by himself and his friends.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: Mr. Speaker, since the legions on the other side seem to have faded away, I will gladly resume the debate. May I at the outset extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address on the very excellent way in which they acquitted themselves of that duty? May I also extend my hearty congratulations to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) on the position which he has attained, although in his case there is a
certain feeling of sympathy mingled with my congratulations? Amidst some outstanding imperfections my right hon. friend possesses many good qualities, and he certainly displayed wonderful courage when he consented to be the sacrificial lamb after the right hon. gentleman (Sir Thomas White) who was elected in Leeds in 1917 refused to play the leading part in what has become a funeral procession.
Sir, we have met this session under very special circumstances-circumstances upon which I wish to briefly dwell, and which have compelled my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to move the amendment which we are now discussing. That amendment is a direct demand on this Parliament to uphold honour in public life. It is an assertion of the will of the people of Canada never to abdicate the position of master to take up the duty of servant. As that great exponent of British Liberalism, Mr. Asquith, said on a memorable occasion: "Democracy implies that the will of the people must prevail." The House of Commons must reflect the opinion of the country and the national will. Parliament and the people must be of one mind, and when they cease to agree power should revert to the force that dispensed it. We have to-day in this country a Government that pretends to govern, and a Parliament that pretends to legislate, for unmistakable signs and innumerable evidences have shown very clearly that public confidence, the mainspring, the life breath, of Government and legislation, has withdrawn equally from the one and from the other. The present Government is at this moment in the most humiliating and disgraceful position which any government has held in this country since the days of what has become known as the "nest of traitors," and when they resort to quibbling and contrivances [DOT] of procedure for the purpose of clinging to office until 1922; when they resort to subterfuges, even dignified under the name of party strategy; and when they do that under the pretence that there is unrest in this country, they are delivering against themselves a judgment which the country needs only to register when the proper time comes. This government measures up to the well-known definition of Toryism: "Distrust of the people qualified by fear." The statement that it will not yield to public opinion but will go to the full limit of its time is a challenge that will be taken up.

The amendment of my hon. leader and the denial of the right of the present Parliament to legislate are justified on three main grounds. First, the election of 1917 was held and a majority obtained under the special conditions of the war, by means of a franchise which was specially framed for what was described as the only purpose Of the election, and was for the duration of the war. Second, since this election a new reign has been inaugurated; a new Administration has been formed; a new Prime Minister has been appointed; a new party has been created, and new questions have arisen which were not only submitted to the electorate, but were specifically excluded fiom their consideration and from their verdict. Third, this Government and Parliament do not possess the confidence of the people of this country; and cogent evidence has been shown not only of the swinging of the pendulum, but of a deeply rooted national distrust in the ministerial leaders. The speakers who have preceded me have related extensively the conditions under which the last election was held. I shall not go over the ground again; I shall not quote the written and spoken pledges of the members of the Government, from the right hon. Prime Minister down to the last member of the Administration. An Election Act was passed picking the electors who were to select the Administration. The Prime Minister of that time asked the people of Canada to suspend for the time being all their political views and the consideration of all questions which were controversial between the parties, and a Union Government was formed with the distinct understanding that it was only to last for the duration of the war. Thousands of Liberals voted for the hon gentlemen opposite, believing in the sincerity of those pledges. Those who voted against the .Government were branded as disloyal, as being allies of the Kaiser, as not being good Canadians- because it was pointed out that the only issue was the carrying on of the war; that all the other issues had been temporarily suspended. It was stated that no loyal Canadian, Mr. Speaker, could vote otherwise than for the Union Government, however strong, however divergent, may have been their views on ordinary political questions. My hon. friends opposite cannot deny that; there is not one of them that did not say so. The electors of Canada know that, and the continuance in 
office of the present Government under the circumstances, constitutes a gross and palpable injustice to Canadian democracy. That is the very reason why so many men in this country who would be inclined otherwise to support my right hon. friend are opposed to his continuance in office, because as between him and public morality and national honour, they choose the latter. Take the case of. the soldiers- it is the most glaring one. Thousands of young Canadians voted for this Government because circulars were freely sent to all the military camps in France, Britain and Canada, even in the United States, and to the troops in the trenches, telling those young men that this was a war election; that the only issue was selective conscription; that the only question was the carrying on of the war; that the mandate they were called upon to give was a mandate for that purpose and no other, and that there would be another election when the war was over. In many cases the soldiers did not know who were the candidate^ to whom they were giving their suffrage. Indeed, in the Yukon Territory the votes of the soldiers were registered before there was any candidate in the field. Fourteen members of this House, Mr. Speaker, who had been defeated in Canada sit in this Parliament to-day by virtue of the soldiers' vote. I do not protest against the soldiers having exercised their right to vote. When I used the same argument in the city of Peterborough, I was taken to task by some newspapers, and the Montreal Gazette said that I had protested against the votes given to the soldiers, though paying me the compliment that I was generally more careful in my words. Sir, I do not and did not complain about the votes of the soldiers. The war is over; those issues are past; the only ones who want to keep them alive are the members of the present Government, who refuse to elect a peace Parliament, and who remain in office by virtue of a mandate given to a war Parliament. What I said in Peterborough and what I say in this House is that, to the soldiers of Canada who gave a vote under such unprecedented and special circumstances, on their being told that they were giving that vote for a special time and a special purpose, it is very unfair to use and abuse that mandate for the settlement of other questions, especially when those young men from one end of the country to the other are asking

the Government to give them an opportunity and the right to vote on the domestic questions of Canada. I do not wish to be understood as stating that the Government has no right to legislate on anything that, at the time of the election, it did not explicitly declare that it would deal with. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) put up a man of straw to knock him down when he referred to that matter, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), in labouring extensively on that topic and quoting Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other constitutional authorities to that effect, was losing his time, as nobody will deny what he attempted to prove. But when a government specifically state that they will not deal with particular matters or things which are in controversy between the parties, when upon that assumption thousands of Liberals vote for that government, and when now, in spite of that pledge and declaration, they proceed to deal with and legislate upon matters which they themselves specifically excluded from the verdict they asked for from the electorate, I cannot comprehend the ethics or sense of honour of men who would do that in the face of such declarations. The question is not so much one of power or legal right, it is one of public morality, of common honesty. The action of the Government in this regard is a gross breach of faith, as gross a breach of faith as ever disgraced the political history of this country, and made all the more gross by the fact that the men who are guilty of it claim the law and the Constitution as their defence. It is a well known fact that the cleverest deceivers usually manage to keep within the four corners of the law. It is to be regretted that Canadian public men put themselves in the position of a man who will lure on a friend to make a bet and then refuse to pay, because the debt is not recoverable at law.
The second point of my argument is that we have confronting us to-day a new Administration, a new party, a new Prime Minister, and a new ministry, none of which has ever received the endorsation of the Canadian people. Immediately after the close of last session, there was announced to the Canadian public the setting of a star and the rising of a new one. It was at the same time announced to the world that the Canadian Unionist party had passed out of existence and that a new party had taken its place. The other day the Prime Minister claimed that this new party is the legitimate descendant of the former party. I quite admit that it is the descendant of
the other, but I have my doubts as to its legitimacy. Legitimate children, as a rule, are proud to bear the name of their father. The new party was shy, if not ashamed, to go throughout the world retaining the name of its generator, and the hyphenated appellation of "National Liberal and Conservative," which means everything on earth and, for that reason, nothing at all, was used.
I admit that there was not avery discernible solution of continuity between the Unionist party and this one. The new party, however, was cut out, drafted, painted red, white and blue, and varnished with the blessings and good wishes of the special interests which always controlled its predecessor. The former member for Peterborough West, to whom I give credit for being one man who kept his pledge to his electors, asserted that the National Liberal and Conservative party, like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin, was not born, it "growed." Lord Hugh Cecil, speaking a few days ago to his constituents, intimating that he would sit on the Opposition side of the House with his distinguished brother, used these words:
Parties, like poets, are born, not made. They arise out of circumstances, spontaneously, not out of plans and plots.
If the British statesman is right and a party cannot arise out of plans and plots, I wonder what is the real character of the aggregation that controls the Government to-day. The Government and the ministerial press proclaimed to the world that a new party had been formed. When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), quoted as an excuse to refuse an election, the precedent of Sir John Macdonald being replaced by Sir John Abbott, Sir John Thompson, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and Sir Charles Tupper; that of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), being replaced by Mr. Murray; that of Mr. Walter Scott being replaced by Mr. William Martin; that of Sir Lomer Gouin being replaced by Mr. Taschereau, without a general election being held; they forgot to mention, or rather took good care not to mention, that in each one of those cases there was only a change in' leadership, and in no case was there a new party or a new programme.
Moreover, the ministry which is on the treasury benches is far from being the ministry to which a mandate was given in 1917. The men who were in the ministry of 1917 formed a fairly able combination. Indeed, we were told at the time that it was a combination of the best brains

of the country. But surely not even the most sanguine supporter of the present ministry would make such a claim in favour of this Administration. Most of the ministers who gave prestige to the Unionist Administration have withdrawn, and their places have been taken by gentlemen whose main qualifications for office were that they occupied seats where there was less danger of losing an election than in others. The present Cabinet is notable more by the men who are not now of it than by those who are in it. It is a Cabinet of shreds and patches, and if the few additions which are mentioned in the papers as likely to be made in the near future are made, they will serve only t^ magnify the oddness of the complexion and the preposterous appearance of the crazy-work. The most ingenious patching will not suffice to make the old Tory-Unionist Government garment cover our large national limbs. Patching serves only to display more conspicuously the imperfections of its cut and texture.
The right hon. Prime Minister claimed the other day that this Administration is young, having been returned to office in 1917. I will point out the numerous changes that have been made in the Cabinet since that day; I will point out the striking difference between what it is to-day and what it was two years ago, and perhaps my right hon. friend will permit me to apply to his ministry these words of the great satirist Juvenal: Facies tua computat annos

"Your very face betrays your age." Before leaving this subject I have a word or two to address to the very, very few gentlemen who still describe themselves as Liberals and form an appendage to this reactionary Administration. One of these gentlemen proclaimed yesterday his articles of faith. Now-I am going to speak my mind very frankly-as between an insincere Liberal and a candid Tory, give me the Tory every time. It does not cheapen the political currency. It does not degrade the morality of our public life. Sir, Liberalism is not, and cannot be, represented in this Cabinet or elsewhere by men who in recent years have been on every sicle of every public question, and never loyal to any. Monsieur Foucher, a Prime Minister under Napoleon, was said to have taken at various times seven different and contradictory oaths of allegiance. I think some Canadian public men could quite easily rival that record without seriously hurting their convictions. In this connection I

desire to quote the words of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) at Saskatoon. I shall quote from what hon. gentlemen opposite will regard as a very authoritative newspaper the Ottawa Journal, of November 13, 1920:
Mr. Calder said that three years ago he did not understand the tariff question as well as he did at the present time, for the reason that he had never had occasion to study it. "I was," he said, "more or less of a parrot, just as other people are parrots. I got up in our Legislature and advocated free fertilizers when I did not know the first thing about it, and forty other members knew no more."
My hon. friend said he was a parrot, and did not know anything about the tariff.
I ask you, Sir, in what light the hon. gentleman appears when his leader, the right hon. Prime Minister, said in his speech the other day that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is and always has been consistent. The only mean- [DOT] ing could be that he was still consistently -a parrot; he still repeats and registers his master's voice-only the master has changed. In Moosejaw, my hon. friend said that he was a Liberal, but not a Mackenzie King Liberal. Sir, Liberalism is a creed, it is a doctrine, it is a set of principles, but if my hon. friend wishes to refer to the Liberals in this House or in this country as King Liberals, and at the same time claims that he is still a Liberal, the only inference is that he is a Meighen Liberal, which is a species unknown both to zoology and common sense. Why, when my hon. friend was in the West singing a love duet with the right hon. the Prime Minister-I admit this is not in the newspapers, but it was repeated to me by many Liberals in Regina and other western cities-sitting around the dinner table he told the people there: "The Liberals in the House of Commons are not serious about an election. They do not want an election.
"There are members in the House who told me last year that if the Government was in danger of being defeated they would absent themselves when the division came." Sir, on behalf of the members of this side of the House, I ask my hon. friend as a gentleman to substantiate that slanderous statement. Let my hon. friend or any other gentleman give the name of any member who said that. Even now press correspondents are saying that we are not serious about asking for an election; yet in the very next column they stultify themselves by asserting that we on this side

of the House are refusing pairs, are most unfair, and are willing to take any sort of advantage to defeat the Government. Could two statements he more contradictory? The one statement answers the other. The people of Canada will be able to judge of the sincerity of those who say these things.
The third reason in favour of the amendment is that this Government is no longer in harmony with public opinion and has utterly lost the confidence of the country. Indeed, it has not only lost the country's confidence; it has earned its contempt. No government has the moral right to pass legislation under such circumstances. The result of the by-elections cannot be misread; they are bold, definite and unequivocal. The Canadian people have made it clear that they want a new government. They will not let the country pass through two more years of dishonourable history in order to allow a group of political gentlemen to show their consistency in their vices as well as in their virtues, and to gratify the human disinclination of my hon. friend, the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Guthrie), to become once more a private man. As my hon. friend the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), pointed out in the course of his admirable speech, out of fifteen elections held since 1917 the Government lost ten and won only five, but in each of these five in glorious victories they had themselves selected the constituencies; and, in four of the five, Cabinet ministers were candidates. Every time an election was forced upon this Government by the natural course of events they have been overwhelmingly defeated. Yet, Heaven nows the expedients to which they resorted in order to check the threatening adverse march of events. My right hon. friend the new Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), has always been noted for the cleverness of his electoral devices and he has worked out a new scheme. He is running his elections on the instalment plan. Last year seven elections were held on the same day. In two of the constituencies members of the Government were candidates, and the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Tolmie), were elected. But on the same day there was an election in Glengarry, there was one in Assiniboia, there was one in Victoria and Carleton, and there was one in the good constituency known as Quebec East; and in every one of these the Government was snowed under by overwhelming majorities. In the County of Prince, Prince Edward Island, my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), was elected by acclamation. In the county of North Ontario the election was postponed owing to the death of one of the candidates, but the Government was defeated when the election was held. This year, under the new business methods of the new Prime Minister, instead of having the by-elections on the same date, as has always been the custom, and as is only proper, we are having them in slices; as I say, it is the instalment plan, and it is being operated in a very irregular manner; the debt that is overdue is not given preference over the new one. The county of East Elgin became vacant by the death of the sitting member on February 14, 1920; the election was held on November 22, 1920, nine months afterwards. Yet the county of St. James Montreal had become vacant at about the same time, and the election was held immediately. The county of Peterborough became vacant by Mr. Burnham's resignation on July 15, 1920, and the election was held on February 7, 1921. Yet at the same time, in the middle of July, 1920, the county of Yale became vacant by Mr. Burrell's appointment to public office and the election was held on November 22, 1920. The two counties of St. John and Colchester became vacant on the 16th and 13th July, 1920, respectively, and the elections in these constituencies were held November 22, 1920. Why this difference in the treatment accorded East Elgin and Peterborough as compared with others. And we are now told-at least I have read in the Montreal Gazette-that an election may be held pretty soon in the county of York-Sunbury which is actually vacant; but as regards the county of Ya-maska, it is said that the province of Quebec is so largely represented in Parliament that there is no need of an election in that constituency. When an election is over in one constituency the electoral machine of the Government is transferred to another place. East Elgin and Peterborough have witnessed and have withstood the tremendous and costly experiment of the new organization which my right hon. friend referred to in his speech, so much so that the honest people in these two important ridings were asking themselves with amazement the question: "Where does the money come from?" But the Government's machinery was of no avail, and public opinion asserted itself in a ringing man-

ner against this discredited Administration. Hon. gentlemen opposite are now trying to minimize the importance of these elections. Indeed, my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), stated, amidst the cheers of his followers on the other side, that the election in Peterborough constituted a mandate to the Government to carry on, to use the stereotyped words of the former member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White). I shall not discuss this further than to express the hope that my right hon. friend was more logical and displayed more common sense when he represented our country at the League of Nations recently. The Prime Minister, the ministerial candidate in Peterborough, and all the ministerial forces, claimed that the issue of the election was the tariff policy. Am I right in stating that? We stated that the issue was the usurpation by this Government of administrative power, and that this Parliament had outlived its existence and its mandate. On this issue the member from West Peterborough, (Mr. Gordon), fought and won. Now the Prime Minister states, with great satisfaction, that the verdict was not against the tariff. The Minister of Justice follows and declares that the verdict was not against the right of the Government to continue in office. These were the two issues according to them. Who is right, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice? Was the verdict against the tariff policy of the Government or, to use their own words, against its right to carry on. Hon. gentlemen opposite are entitled to their choice but they must, at least, reconcile their views in the matter. The only alternative would be that the verdict is against^ the new Prime Minister personally, and is simply a notification that the electors do not want him. Sir, the Prime Minister went to Peterborough and said that the election was most important, that the return of the Government candidate was imperative, that all eyes in Canada were cast on Peterborough. He said the same thing in East Elgin. Why should he now try to take all those Canadian eyes off Peterborough and East Elgin? The result doubtless does not substantiate the statement which my right hon. friend made in my own province in the city of Sherbrooke, that the Liberal party outside of the province of Quebec was extinct. He has to modify his tune in that respect. Still even the Minister of Militia had the 
temerity to make this wicked assertion. There is one party in this country to-day which is extinct. It has practically disappeared from the Provincial Administration of all the provinces of Canada, and in this Federal arena it has taken concealment under a new equivocal name. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) also went to Peterborough, and again the eyes of all Canadians were described as being cast in the direction of that now famous constituency. The right hon. gentleman even said-I read it in the press; the defeat of the Government candidate would be the first drop of poison. I gave credit to my right hon. friend that he was sincere, and he obviously showed the effect of that drop of poison on his political constitution when, instead of defending the Government in this very dangerous period, that great parliamentary fighter of so many battles used his time to advocate the League of Nations before a House which is unanimously in favour of that great organization. The electors of those various constituencies have clearly expressed the determination of the people of Canada to restore true responsible Governmment and to be ruled by men who are elected by the people in a normal and constitutional way. Yet the Prime Minister states that he will not yield to this public intimation. The Salvation Army says of all mankind that a man may be down, he is never out. But my right hon. friend is wrong when he thinks this is also true of the Government. When a Government is down it has to go out. It is important that it should be so. When it is obvious that a Government does not command the support of the majority of the people, its decisions carry no influence, it has no more authority. Individual members cannot speak here with authority when everybody knows that they no longer speak the voice of their constituents, that their tenure in this Parliament is precarious. Such a thing does not make for the dignity of parliamentary institutions. It reduces the House of Commons to the level of a mock parliament, and patriotic statesmen have no right to inflict that on a great country. It does not make either for independence or freedom of action. The member who knows that he cannot secure the renewal of his constituents' mandate is tempted to support the existing Government in everything through thick and thin, because he knows that when they cease to swim he will have to sink. Rather

than swimming in a hazy obscurity he is tempted to avoid anything that may bring down the Government however divergent from theirs may be his views on the particular subject under discussion. The worse the prospects for the Government afforded by an election the surer is the pressure exercised on individual weakness. I do not hesitate to say that the votes cast by many hon. gentleman when a division comes will not mean confidence in the Government so much as confidence in themselves to retain a little longer seats which are already moving away from under them. I am sure the Minister of Militia appreciates that feeling. The Prime Minister said that his Government has the confidence of a majority in this House and that so long as he retains that majority he has a constitutional right to carry on. I shall endeavour to show that that position is unsound, and that the Government must also command the support of the majority of the people.
But, Sir, can my right hon. friend say that he has still a majority in this House which allows him to rule with honour and dignity. The majority of seventy in 1917 has dwindled to twenty, probably to fifteen to-day. And yet the hon. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) has the gall-I do not know whether that is a good English word-to refer to us as a "remnant." Remnant! Remnant! What is the hon. gentleman himself? What is the Government that faces us in this House? Remnant! The only "remnant" that I see is this Government, which had a majority of seventy, three years ago and which is now struggling to keep a bare majority, and being unable to do it by the ordinary way of electoral victories, is adopting the rather humiliating process of trying to get recruits from the ranks of its opponents by methods which I do not care to describe, in order to postpone the shameful defeat that awaits it at the polls. I hurl back in the Minister of Militia's face this mean appellation that he applied to the Opposition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is exceeding the proprieties of debate when he accuses another hon. member of applying a "mean appellation." I think that upon reflection he will realize the impropriety of the expression and will withdraw it.


Ernest Lapointe: I will with pleasure withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour knows that I am not an adept in
the use of the English language. As I said, the majority of seventy of three years ago has dwindled to about twenty to-day. Cabinet reorganization cannot be undertaken, the best men in the party cannot be called to the Council table lest the dangerous adventure of by-elections conduces to a still greater reduction of that majority. Yet reorganization is badly needed. Friends and panegyrists of the Prime Minister in the press state that he is practically alone in the Cabinet. I would not like to say that, and I hope I have not hurt the feelings of any of the members of the Cabinet in repeating the statement. It is the ministerial press that says that my right hon. friend is the one man in this Administration, and that he is surrounded by gentlemen of whom we might say, after the manner of a former British Prime Minister, that they are all ciphers, he being the unit that gives value to them. I do not agree with that statement, far from it, and I am free to confess that if I had been given a vote-and I hope my right hon. friend will permit me to say so-when the selection of a new Prime Minister was made, there is one gentleman in the Cabinet whom I would have voted for rather than for my right hon. friend. I will not name him,-so every other minister may think that he is the man. I would make only one exception

I beseech my hon. friend the Minister of Militia not to think so. I have quoted the statement which is made by newspapers friendly to the Government. Is it in the interests of the good administration of this country that a Government should be so weak and impotent? After having stated for the last two years that we had in Ottawa a Government without a leader-that is what the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Star used to say very frequently-shall we have the misfortune now to have a leader without a Government?
Other expedients are used to preserve that vanishing majority. The other day, during the speech of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) your honour ruled that he was bound to describe the right hon. gentleman who was elected in Leeds in 1917 as "the member for Leeds." Still I do not hesitate to say that this right hon. gentleman under the law has forfeited his right to his seat. What is the law on this matter? Section 15, chapter 10, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, reads, in part, as follows:
If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or performs any service for the Government of Canada, or

for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be paid .... the seat of such member shall thereby be vacated and his election shall thenceforth be null and void.
The preamble of the schedule to the Act which was passed last year concerning the acquisition of 'he Grand Trunk railway provides that one of the parties to the agreement is called the Government; and clause 6 of this schedule, which forms part of the Act provides:
That the value of the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be determined by a Board of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the Government.
And the first sentence of clause 21 of the schedule reads as follows:
Each of the parties to this agreement shall pay its own costs of and in connection with the arbitration subsequent to the date of this agreement, including the remuneration of the arbitrator appointed by it.
The amount of the remuneration is not fixed in the law, but it is specifically stated that the arbitrator who shall act in the matter shall be remunerated by the Government. I say, Sir, that under the circumstances there should have been an election in Leeds and that there should be a member from that constituency voting on the amendment to the Address.
There is another matter to which I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker. On July 21, 1920, the hon. member for Ste. Antoine, Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames), delivered a very eloquent address before the Empire Parliamentary Association in London on "The Dominions and the League of Nations." This address was printed, and I have a copy of it in my hand. With your permission, I will read the following words from page 5:
Now, X have just returned from a hurried visit to Canada. Mr. Balfour has alluded to the double capacity which I occupied at that time, and for the moment still occupy. For sixteen years I have been the representative of Western Montreal in the Canadian House of Commons. My resignation is in the hands of the Speaker because I have found that my new work is quite enough to occupy all the time and attention that I am capable of giving to it.
This was on July 21, 1920. Why should the electors of St. Antoine, Montreal, be disfranchised? Why has the resignation of Sir Herbert Ames been kept secret and withheld? I am sure that it must have been intercepted on its way to Your Honour, because you could not have it in your hands without acting upon it-but that is always the humiliating method of avoiding IMr. E. Lapointe.]
an election and evading a defeat. Shall this be permitted to continue? Will the Canadian people stand for that much longer? Sir, the Government does not own the people of Canada, body and soul, by feudal right.
My right hon. friend, in his characteristic way, discarded as ridiculous and unworthy of attention the argument that the Government must not only have the support of a majority in the House, hut must also have the confidence of the people, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) followed in the same vein. I take issue with my right hon. friend and these hon. gentlemen. It is in direct violation of the spirit and traditions of the British constitution that a Parliament should continue its existence when it is clear that it no longer represents, carries the support, or enjoys the confidence of the people. Against the opinion of the Canadian Prime Minister, who struggles frantically to remain in office against the will of the country-and the Minister of Militia issued yesterday a challenge that I shall now take up-I shall oppose the opinion of a great British Prime Minister, who, placed in similar though less unfavourable circumstances, deemed it his duty to let the people rule and select a government which had their confidence. To the Meighenian-if my hon. friend will permit me to use the expression-views of the duty of a constitutional Prime Minister, I shall oppose the Gladstoijian standard. Mr. Gladstone had been returned to office at the election of 1868, and in 1873, two years before the expiration of the mandate of that parliament, seeing that the by-elections were going against the government, and that he did not carry any longer the support of the majority of the people of Britain, he dissolved Parliament and Mr. Disraeli was returned by a large majority. Mr. Gladstone took his seat in the British House of Commons as the leader of the Opposition, and you will permit me to read a few words which he uttered in his speech on the Address in the next session following the election. You will find those words at page 80 of the Debates of the British Parliament of March, 1874, volume 218:
My hon. friend seems to think that there is but one important element In the position of a government, and that is the numerical amount of its majority. Now, upon that point I join issue with my hon. friend. I think he fundamentally misunderstands the constitution of this country if he supposes that the actual majority that a government may posses!! in an existirg House of Commons is sufficient to

give it more moral and political strength for the discharge of its arduous duties, after it has become apparent or when it is becoming clear that the possession of that majority is not agreeable to the sense and the convictions of the country. Now, Sir, there is the whole difference between my hon. friend and myself.
Further, on page 81, he says:
Because in this country we watch the signs and currents of public opinion. We recognize the general title of the country to be governed in conformity with its wishes and its intelligence ; and the mere possession of a parliamentary majority, satisfactory as it is when it is a true indication of the actual current of feeling and opinion of the country, is no adequate support and no adequate warrant for the continuance of a government in office if it has become clear, or when there is reasonable ground for supposing that the desires of the country are in an opposite direction.
On page 84 here is what he says:
Yet, as an Englishman, as one attached to the institutions of the country, and as one who held an office which bound him to regard the principles of the constitution, I cannot regret a dissolution which has given to the people of this country an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon the conduct of affairs, though I think the judgment which has been passed is an erroneous one.
Gladstone spoke as an Englishman and I commend his words to both the Prime tvlinister and the Minister of Militia and Defence. They are repeated by one who is not an Englishman, who has not one drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in his veins, but who is a true lover and admirer of British principles and who wants to uphold them in this country.
Later on in that session, Mr. Gladstone was still being attacked in the British House of Commons for having so dissolved Parliament two years before the expiration of his Parliamentary term and so brought on an election in which he was defeated. I wish to quote only a very few words *which the House will find on page 1126 of the same volume of the British Hansard. Mr. Gladstone said:
Therefore, my regret is, not that the dissolution took place when it did, but that it did not take place before, for I am not willing to hold office under any circumstances, with a minority either in this House or the country. It is repugnant to my feelings, and not compatible with the best interests of the country that a Government should continue to govern, even with a numerical majority, when its strength is falling away, and when there are daily increasing evidences that it no longer represents the will and opinions of the constituencies. That is the regret of which I have to make a frank expression. Had I known as well as I know now what was to take place, it would not have been upon the 24th of January or the 24th of December, nor upon any day in January or December, but at a much earlier period, that my colleagues and myself would have advised the Crown to dissolve.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) the other day, and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) yesterday stated that the opinions which we have quoted in this debate were the opinions of men who were out and wanted to go in, in which, they said, they were like members on this side. The words of Mr. Gladstone were uttered after the election, not for the purpose of getting in, as those hon. gentlemen said, but to explain why he had advised the Crown to dissolve, namely, because it was made clear to him that the majority of the people of the country were opposed to his continuing in office. This is the first precedent.
The Minister of Militia and Defence quoted as a precedent the Government of 1892 to 1895 when Mr. Gladstone had withdrawn and had been replaced by Lord Rosebery. It is true Mr. John Redmond presented to the British House of Commons a motion asking for dissolution of Parliament in 1895, but at that time, what were the conditions? The British Parliament had three years of existence, and out of, I think, nine by-elections which had taken place, the Government had gained and had lost and the net gain to the Opposition was only three seats in the House of Commons. Is there any similarity to the position of a Government which had a majority of seventy in this House, which majority is reduced to twenty-three? Yet, this is what Mr. Balfour said in the British House of Commons on that occasion:
I have never observed in the history of this country that any party or any Government have gained credit for hanging on to office in the vulgar sense, without power, and with only the insignia of office-for hanging on to their places when they were deprived of all real influence over the course of events, and when the general trend of opinion was against them. Under such circumstances, a Government may possibly do good administrative work; it may possibly continue to hold its tenure of office for one month, two months, or even for a year or more, but you will never And, in the history of this country, that this had the result of increasing the credit of a Government with those in whose favour their fortunes must ultimately rest.
In 1895, Lord Salisbury was returned to power with a large majority, and in 1900, there was held that election which was referred to by the Minister of Militia and Defence as the "Khaki" election. This was during the latter part of the South African war. Two years afterwards, Lord Salisbury resigned and was replaced by Mr. Balfour, and then by-elections began to go against the Conservative or Unionist



administration of Britain. I will quote the words of two of the leading English statesmen of that time as I find their utterances recorded in volume 150 of the British Hansard. This is what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said, as reported at page 71:
It is common for us to say, and it is true constitutionally, that the Minister of the Crown in this country is selected and appointed because he is the man who commands a majority in the House of Commons. But what does that mean? It means that the command of the majority of the House represents the feeling of the country. The moment the House of Commons gets out of touch and harmony with the country, then that plea for retaining office dissolves; and the right hon. gentleman has no right to entrench himself behind the confidence and support of his friends here after it is known to all mankind and to himself. as well as to any of them, that he has lost the confidence of the country. When I say it is known to himself, it is obviously so, because, if he was not aware he had lost the confidence of the country, why should he show any reluctance to appeal to the country and immensely strengthen his position by securing a favourable verdict from it?
In the same debate, at page 117, Sir Edward Gray is reported as making this statement, speaking of the right hon. Mr. Balfour:
Does he expect to get any good result in Parliament from prolonging the life of the present Government? The last election took place upon the war, and it could not have counted as an ordinary election. To all Intents and purposes this House of Commons is ten years old. Does the Prime Minister suppose he can restore it to a vigorous and healthy condition now? He knows he cannot, and the House knows he cannot, because they know it is out of touch with the country as a whole. The longer the Government attempts to go on keeping the House of Commons working, the more they will damage the House of Commons as an institution, and the longer they go on, I sincerely hope and trust, the greater will be the resentment of the country when they have the courage to appeal to It.
My hon. friend the Minister of Militia slipped very quickly over this precendent, and he was in error in the last part of his statement with regard to it. These words were uttered in July 1905, and five months afterwards, on the 4th of December, 1905, two years before the expiration of the parliamentary term Mr. Balfour did not dissolve parliament but resigned his position as Prime Minister. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was called upon to form a ministry on the 5th of December, 1905. The elections were held in January, 1906, and the government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was returned by a large majority. There is one feature, however, of the precendents quoted by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia with refer-
IMr. E. Lapointe.!
ence to the government of Lord Rosebery in 1895, and the government of Mr. Balfour in 1905 which will be followed in this country, and it is this: Both these governments were defeated and swept out of office when the electors had a chance to pronounce their opinion. I have quoted the opinion of leaders in the public life of Great Britain, and I may say that on the principle there is no difference of opinion. They may have differed as to whether the circumstances at different periods justified the application of the principle, but on the principle itself they all agreed. I shall now quote the opinion of constitutional writers. I call your attention to what Sir William Anson says in his "Law and Custom of the Constitution'' at page 372:
We must not forget that the possible violation of the laws is not the only reason why a Ministry should retire when it is shown to have lost the confidence of the House or the country- Ministers are not only Ministers of the Queen, they represent the public opinion of the United Kingdom,; when they cease to impersonate public opinion they become a mere group of personages who must stand or fall by the prudence of their action. They may have to deal with disorders at home or hostile manifestations abroad ; they will have to meet these with the knowledge that they have not the confidence or support of the country; and their opponents at home and abroad would know this too.
Professor Dicey in his "Law of the Constitution" says:
The reason why the House can, in accordance with the constitution, be deprived of existence is that an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors. A dissolution is allowable or necessary whenever the wishes of the Legislature are or may fairly be presumed to be different from the wishes of the nation .... The essential point to notice is the principle that the authority which ultimately determines the right of a Cabinet to retain office is the nation. The authority of the House of Commons is derived from its representing the will of the nation, and the chief object of a dissolution is to ascertain that the will of Parliament coincides with the will of the nation .... The precedents show that in modern times the rules as to the dissolution of Parliament are like other conventions of the Constitution, intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political authority of the State.
The constitutional historian, Mr. J. R. Green, writes as follows:
A minister availing himself of the temper of a parliament elected in some moment of popular panic, and refusing to appeal to the country would be, even if legal, a criminal.
I would advise my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, if he were here, to be

4G7
more careful in issuing challenges. Of course, I cannot quote an instance which is analogous to the present, of a government changing its membership, forming a new administration, selecting a new leader, forming a new party, formulating a new platform, as was done in July, 1920, and not going to the country. There is nothing similar in British history, because it never was done. My hon. friend, if I may be allowed to call him so, though he is no longer a member of this House, the late member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), said:
There is no precedent in history of a group of men holding up two parties and running away with the government.
Those words are not mine but they will serve to show that it is rather difficult to find a situation quite identical to the present one. I will quote another instance, a very recent one, which took place in one of the British dominions. Last year, I think it was in May or June, 1920, General Smuts, the prime minister of South Africa, was returned to office under peculiar circumstances at a general election. He was the leader of a party called the South African party.
That party elected 44 members to the House. There was the Nationalist party under General Hertzog, which also secured 44 seats in the House of Representatives. There was another party, the Unionist party, under Sir Thomas Smart, which elected 25 members. And finally there was the Labour party with a membership of 21. General Smuts had no majority over all the other parties combined, but he succeeded in enlisting the support of the Unionist party, and to a large extent of the Labour party, and managed to carry on the affairs of the Commonwealth without any great difficulty. Indeed, he had a good majority in the House. But after the session was over he considered that those conditions were rather precarious and he tried to form an alliance with the Nationalist party. A conference was held, but the extremists of the Nationalist party could not modify their views to a sufficient extent to allow General Smuts and themselves to co-operate. Then he made an appeal to Sir Thomas Smart of the Unionist party and succeeded in forming a new permanent party which has retained the name of the South African party but of which Sir Thomas Smart and his Unionist followers are members. General Smuts had a majority in the House of Representatives of South Africa. But what did
General Smuts do? He had no mandate from the people of South Africa to carry on the affairs of the country with a new party formed of a combination of the South African party and the Unionist party. General Smuts is a Liberal; General Smuts is a statesman; General Smuts is a great British constitutionalist; and he found that it was his duty to secure a mandate from the people of South Africa. Yet, from his point of view, it was a dangerous course to pursue; it was a very close fight. But it is always safer to trust the people, and General Smuts to-day is Premier of South Africa, and when he proceeds to the Imperial Conference in June he will go there speaking in no unmistakable way as the representative of the South African people.
This leads me to say a word or two with regard to the Imperial Conference. The conference has been heralded, promised, postponed, and finally called. It is to be a gathering of momentous importance. The destinies of Canada, the national status of Canada, and questions of most vital and sacred interest to this nation, are to be discussed. Problems of extreme gravity, the solution of which may involve tremendous responsibility on our part, will be brought before that conference. Just to show that I am not exaggerating, I shall read the very words that are used in the calling together of this conference. Here they are:
The Dominions are invited to attend the Imperial Conference in June on the lines of the Imperial War Cabinet Meetings which took place in 1917 and 1918, to deal with the many-urgent problems of common interest which call for the co-ordination of policy and action by the different governments of the Empire.
From the speech from the Throne delivered a few days ago in the British Parliament I extract the following words:
I hope the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland. as well as the representatives of India, will be able to visit London during the coming summer. I am confident that discussions that will take place during their visits will be of the utmost value in bringing about co-ordination, both in the external and internal policy of the Empire.

Mr. Lloyd George, the British Premier, speaking in the House of Commons, is reported in the Montreal Star, of February 16, 1921, as follows:
Mr. Lloyd George speaking in the House last evening declared that it was too much to ask of these small Islands that they undertake the whole burden of the defence of a gigantic Empire in every sea, and that at the forthcoming conference of Prime Ministers of the Dominions in London the whole problem of Imperial Defence must be considered. There must

be, the Prime Miister went on, co-ordination not only between the various services, but between the several parts of the Empire. Mr. Lloyd George stated that the Conference of Empire Premiers to be held in London in June will be the most momentous event in the history of the Empire.	.
Now, Sir, after having read that extract, standing here to-day in this Canadian Parliament, fully conscious of the responsibility that attaches to my words, I emphatically state that the gentlemen who pretend to govern Canada at the present time have no right to represent our country at that conference, because they do not enjoy its confidence and are not entitled to speak the national voice; and we will not consider ourselves bound, either legally or morally, by any decision or agreement which they may reach there. It may be said that any such decision will have to be ratified by the Parliament of Canada before it can become binding. But, Sir, the deliberations and discussions that precede the decision are important, and Canadians have the right to confer, deliberate, and discuss matters with the statesmen of the various sister nations of the British Commonwealth, through representatives who carry the support and enjoy the confidence of our people. It has been stated in the press, and indeed my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice clearly suggested it in this House last year, that representatives of the Opposition might be invited to attend the conference as associates of those representing the Government. Sir, I do not hesitate to say-and I know that in this statement I voice the views of my hon. leader in this respect-that no such proposal can be entertained. It would be a mere subterfuge for the purpose of giving to the Government a semblance of authority; it would be, on the part of the Opposition, the mere lending of itself to a violation of the rights of the people. The people of Canada have the right to be represented there by a Government which has its support and confidence. It has the right to be represented by men delegated by a Parliament which has a clear mandate, and has been elected in a regular and constitutional way. What authority and influence is attached to the representatives Who would propose to negotiate in the name of a country which loses no opportunity of repudiating them with all the power of which it is capable? You would not negotiate on a weak foundation, or rather on no foundation at all, and the other parties to the negotiations know the political conditions prevailing in this country. Will you [Mr. E. Eapointe.l
let me read what the Canadian correspondent of the London Times, a Tory if I am not mistaken, sent to that paper and which appeared in the Times edition of January 7th:
Empire Peace Cabinet-Strong Canadian Opinions.
(From our Canadian correspondent.)
The Prime Minister of the Dominion will not discuss the attitude of Canada toward proposals which may be submitted to the meeting of Empire Prime Ministers in June next. Mr. Meighen succeeded to office only a few months ago. Since then there has been a re-organization of the Cabinet, and another re-organization is imminent.
It follows from all this that there is nothing very constructive in proposals from Canada for the Empire Peace Cabinet. No doubt naval defence will be considered, but for the time Canada is reluctant to shoulder new or heavy obligations. The political outlook is uncertain, the government is troubled by the difficulty and complexity of domestic problems, and ministers have still to determine their own attitude towards many questions of national as well as of Imperial concern.
I say, Sir, that it is the clear duty of the Government to let the people elect a new Parliament, select a Government which possesses its confidence, before any gentlemen undertake to proceed to the Imperial Conference and speak on behalf of Canada. Let us set our own house in order before undertaking to rebuild the British Empire or attempting to modify the constitutional structure of other nations. Let us first purify our own political atmosphere and clear away this abnormal parliament which in no way reflects the safe, sane, sober and normal opinion of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken much too long, although I would like to express now my views about some of the matters which are to come up at the Imperial Conference. I believe, however, that having by an amendment challenged the right of this Parliament to legislate under the circumstances, we must first take the sense of the House before discussing the problems of the day. I was surprised to hear some gentlemen in this House blame the leader of the Opposition for having acted as he did. I would simply advise them to consult Bourinot, page 97, and they will see that the course followed by the leader of the Opposition was the legal and constitutional course to adopt.
In bringing my remarks to a conclusion I appeal to hon. gentlemen-though I am not greatly confident that my appeal will be heeded by all-to yield to the clamour

of the people and restore to the Canadian democracy full control over its political institutions. Members of the Government, especially the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, have told us on previous occasions, have painted a very deplorable picture, of the arduous duties of Ministers of the Crown, of how much work they have to do and the sacrifices they have made. Sir, the people everywhere feel that the crown of martyrdom is too heavy for my right hon. friend and his associates. They all want to give them a rest. I invite the Prime Minister to recall those words of Lincoln which would certainly apply to our present political situation:
In this age and in this country public sentiment is everything. With it nothing- can fail, against it nothing can succeed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Two references in the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) make it highly essential, I think, that the position of the Chair should be stated clearly and beyond all question. First with respect to the ruling given by the Chair when the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was speaking. That ruling merely had reference to the well-known rule of the House that an hon. member alluding in debate to another hon. member should do so as the member for a certain constituency, and not refer to him by name. My ruling on that occasion had no reference whatever to the point as to whether the late Minister of Finance is or is not a member of this House. In any event the ruling of the Chair would have no bearing upon that question; but inasmuch as there is no official intimation before me that the seat in question has been vacated I felt that even although the subject might be open to question it was far better to refer to the late Minister of Finance as the member for Leeds.
The second reference to which I wish to allude has to do with the statement credited to the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) that his resignation was in the Speaker's hands. The House will at once realize that it would never do for the impression to go abroad that the Speaker was a party to withholding a document of that character.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I therefore deem it my duty to make it clear to the House that I have not in my possession the resignation of the member for St. Antoine nor have I
ever received a document which was, or which purported to be, the resignation of his seat in this House. I thought it undesirable to interrupt the hon. member for Quebec East while he was speaking, but I felt that at the earliest possible moment the House should be apprised of these facts.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to repeat what I said in the course of my speech that I knew that such resignation had not reached Your Honour's hands, and it must have been withheld on its way.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, the brilliant lawyer and parliamentarian who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lapointe) occupied many minutes of the time of the House in recalling the deeds of some of my ancestors many of whom have been dead for fifty years. It was intensely interesting to me to hear what these fine fellows did but I am more interested to-day in the question, "Where are we going from here, and what are we going to do?" than in what other men did fifty years ago. If there ever was a time when the people are asking "Where are we going from here, what is your platform?" it is to-day? They are asking these questions in a manner more intensely earnest than ever before.
Following the time honoured custom, Sir, permit me to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. They did their work ably, conscientiously and effectively, I should like to say to my hon. friend the mover of the Address (Mr. Mclsaac) that from the first day he appeared in this House he always seemed to know his own mind, always knew the way he was going to vote, and loyally followed his leader. Perhaps being more of a pathfinder myself, I can appreciate what loyalty and service of this kind mean better than some others; therefore I congratulate the hon. gentleman and his constituents, and I hope that he will be long spared to represent them and to support his leader loyally in this House.
To my hon. friend the seconder of the Address (Mr. MacKelvie) I wish to convey my opinion that his speech was the most eloquent maiden effort that I have yet heard; and that I was not alone in thinking this is apparent from the words of the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) who twitted my hon. friend slightly on falling under the influence of the apple. It is well known,

[ think, to all hon. members who have long been in this House that the hon. member from Cape Breton has himself for many years been under the subtle influence of iron and steel in his own province, and apparently that was his Scotch way of complimenting the hon. member for Yale.
To my right hon. (friend the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) I would say that he has reached his high office through no assistance of mine-not wittingly at least. But, on the other hand, I am very glad to be able to congratulate him and Canada and myself on his becoming Prime Minister. If ever there was a time when the people were looking for clean-cut, open-hearted talking so that they can get at the facts, in my judgment, Sir, it is now. From the first day that my right hon. friend became leader of this Government there was no doubt in my mind where he stood on the tariff question, and I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of any other Canadians. I believe that his unequivocal stand has had a good effect all over the country, because the people are looking for the truth. And at least his definite announcement of where he stood on the tariff question cleared away any doubts in my own mind on the subject, and I stand before you to-day, Sir, transformed, so far as Canada is concerned, from the nebulous free trader of a year ago, into as clean-cut and as unequivocal a protectionist on principle as the right hon. the leader of the Government himself.
It might not be without interest to some hon. members to follow the steps by which I reached this conclusion. It was quite unexpected in my own mind. In fact, the statement of the right hon. the leader of the Government came to me as a direct challenge, which I accepted as such, and I started out to collect a bundle of facts with which to bombard the right hon. gentleman this session, but I had not got very far in my search before I discovered that I was collecting two sets of facts. I found, almost without exception, that it was hard to discover a first class political economist who did not, at least in theory, agree with the principles of free trade. On the other hand, I found, with one notable exception -my native land-that practically the whole civilized world was protectionist. That, to my mind, was just as much a fact as the other, and had to be dealt with as such. I started in to find the reasons for that condition of affairs, and for a

while I put it down to original sin and went on building up my platform. I got quite a bundle of facts bolstering up my free trade platform, but when I turned them over I found original sin there, and something told me that if I came to this House with such a theory I would get punctured. So I had to find some better reason, and the conclusion I came to was that men do not accept free trade principles for about the same reason that they do not practice religion. But it is the fact, that they are afraid to do so, and the reasons of their fear are so real and so apparent that to refuse to acknowledge them is to be irrational. People still lock their doors when they go away. There is a reason for it-there are thugs in the world. But it took me some time to reach that conclusion-and after the most eloquent speech of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) yesterday, I think hon. members will understand what I was up against, because free trade, whatever else it has been, whether it is right or whether it is wrong, has undoubtedly been a great success in England.
But I had to find out why all other countries had not adopted something which has been such a great success in England, and for a while I was stuck, but eventually I played that old children's game which my grandchildren are now starting to play -I pretended. I pretended first I was a Frenchman-I stepped across the Atlantic and I looked at the world from the other side; then I pretended I was a German; later on I pretended I was an American; later than that I pretended I was a Canadian; later even than that I pretended I was a Canadian farmer; later even than that I pretended I was a Canadian manufacturer; later even than that, Mr. Speaker, I imagined I was a Canadian statesman; and, last of all, I stepped out of those shoes and got into the shoes of a man of the world-I tried to look at the world from the shoes of a man of the world in a world of men, and the results were extraordinary.
The first great discovery I made was that for thirty long years I had been looking at the question of free trade, thinking the group thoughts of the men with whom I was raised in my early days, and whose interest, I can now clearly see, it was to be free traders. For thirty years I had been thinking on this subject as an Englishman rather than as a Canadian. And the next great discovery I

made was that while free trade was undoubtedly to the best interests of the British people themselves, it by no means followed that it was in the best interests of the people of other countries differently situated.
Another point of view was brought to my attention during my plan of campaign. It did not come in a day, it did not come in a week, it did not come in a month; it took time to reach my present conclusions. I wondered where we were going from here, because my constituents are going to ask that question. I will have to answer it, and every hon. gentleman in this House will have to answer it. I thought, now, looking back over the ages, what has been the progress of men as men. We are undoubtedly better off to-day than our cave-dwelling ancestors were; no sane men in this age would like to exchange places with them. It is a long step from Stonehenge to Westminster; it is a long step from the trade and commerce of Lower Canada, where rum was the chief article of barter, to this honourable House, with its stringent dry laws. We have passed over a very hard road, but we have made very real progress. I do not know whether I ever told you the story before, Mr. Speaker, but once on leave I was invited to Scotland. Almost the first thing, my host, being a Scotchman, pointed out to me, with some considerable detail-more than I thought was necessary at the time- was the battlefield of Bannockburn. He said: "This is where my ancestors whaled the stuffing out of yours." But I had just come from the other side, where Scotchmen and Englishmen and Canadians and Frenchmen and Australians and New Zealanders were standing shoulder to shoulder. The English and the Scotch had had their fight and had shaken hands, and now they were fighting in a common cause.
That, Mr. Speaker, has been the history of the progress of the world. What is the lesson of the war? It is absolutely this, that no country, no matter how big or how well organized, can to-day stand alone. Every soldier who left Canada knows deep down in his heart that Canada alone could not have won the war. Great Britain alone could not have won the war; every soldier who fought over there knows it, just as he knows that no country can to-day stand alone. We passed that stage years ago.
It is here, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make a reference to a remark made by
the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), who, I regret to say, is not at the moment in his seat. The hon. gentleman says that Canada never will do this and never will do that, but the time has long since passed when he or any other member can say what Canada never will do or never shall do. The member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who is not now in his seat, I regret to say, asked the right hon. leader of the Government the other day what certain words of Lloyd George meant. I say to him that the words of Lloyd George mean exactly what they say, and the sooner he or other hon. gentlemen who have aspirations to leadership in this country find that out, the better-it is their job. There is no excuse for ignorance in this matter; you can find it out for a five cent stamp, and they will be glad to tell you.
Now, with the permission of the House, I wish to read a short extract from an article which is entitled "The Yellow Peril." The writer says:
Let us take the broadest possible view of the racial map of the globe as it existed before the recent war. Out of a total number of human beings amounting to 1.700,000,000, 550,000,000 were white, 1,150,000,000 were coloured. Thus the coloured races out-numbered the whites more than two to one. The white world consists of Europe, North America, the southern part of South America, the Siberian portion of Asia, and Australasia. The coloured world consists of the bulk of Asia, virtually the whole of Africa, and most of Central and South America.
This is the point to which I wish to direct attention:
The great bulk of the white race is concentrated in the European continent, and in 1914, before the war, the population of Europe was approximately 450,000,000. Four-fifths of the entire white race lives on less than one-fifth of the white world's territorial area. The remaining one-fifth is scattered to the ends of the earth, doing their best to hold the tide of colour. A century ago the impulse of the white race rolled aggressively eastward; precisely the opposite condition now prevails. The white races are more or less in an attitude of defence against the tremendous wave that is beating on their shores, a wave that is likely to become more tremendous now that the yellow races have learned so much in the course of our lamentable war.
I leave to the imagination of hon. gentlemen what will happen to this continent of America if the powerful white races of Europe are permitted to disintegrate. Four hundred and fifty millions live there; one hundred millions, odd, live here. What will happen? Millions of these colored men to-day

are on the move. At least sixty millions of them are among the most efficient and modern fighters in the world. Mr. Speaker, I claim no great superiority for the white race. For the existence of every one of the great religions, including the Christian, under whose flag I have the honour to stand to-night, the white man is indebted to men of colour-and it owes them much besides. On the other hand, the white race can give much to the coloured races. I could not help thinking when my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was speaking on the League of Nations, that if we could only have with us to-day that learned and distinguished Chinaman to whom he referred, he would agree that it would be far better if we could bring his people up to our standard rather than that they should bring ours down to theirs.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind-and I believe there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any thinking man -that one more war like the last, or one more fight between the white races, will settle this civilization and settle it for good. While I am quite sure that the interests of Canada, of the United States, of England, of Europe, are absolutely one, it does not matter what I believe or what I think; it is what the other fellow thinks and believes that counts. So far as we are concerned, Canada is to-day a nation. The time is coming, and it is not in the far distant future, when Canada will have to make up her mind whether she will take the white man's road, with or without the assistance of America, just as she did in the war.
This brings me to the question of the markets of the world, about which we have heard so much during this debate. My hon. friend from Marquette looks with longing eyes to the big market to the south of us. So do I, and God grant that he will be able to build up a good big trade down there; it is a thing we all want to do. He says they have 120,000,000 people down there and hope to have 200,000,000 in so many years. But let us have a look at Europe. There is a market there, too, for she has 400,000,000 people to-day

not to-morrow or at some distant time in the future-400,000,000 people who need everything that this country produces in order that they may be brought back to normal conditions. If we permit them to disintegrate, we are ruined; the white race is ruined. Is not that a market worth cultivating, too? Is not the

cultivation of that market a job worthy of any man or of any nation? I think so. Let me tell the House about that little island across the sea whose success was so ably presented yesterday by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). That little island to-day produces for export practically nothing but coal; the reason why she can send her ships to all parts of the world and bring back produce is that she can load her ships both ways, and she is the only country on earth that can do that. That is what ruined Germany. Germany tried to grow wheat and to force her manufactured goods on other countries. She gave three years' credit to niggers because she could not afford to take their products back. What would become of our wheat if England were to produce wheat? As I have said, England produces for export practically nothing but coal; she sacrificed the development of her agricultural industry because she wanted to become a manufacturing nation with world-wide markets. It is or has been in her interest to have free trade. Let us take a look at this big market to the south of us. It is not a little island twenty-one miles away from a market of 400,000,000 white men, but it is a large continent producing almost everything that modern man requires, with the exception of tea and coffee. I can think of no other product that man wants that she does not produce in quantities. Which of these countries is likely, in the ordinary course of events, to be the best market for this country, and which country has been the best in the past? Without bothering the House with a lot of figures which I obtained from the statistical office and which, with the permission of the House, I will place on Hansard, I will briefly state that the exports in the last twenty years from Canada to Great Britain exceeded the exports from Canada to the United States by $1,807,604,367. That is the history of the past.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the hon. gentleman that it is only with the unanimous consent of the House that a set of figures can be placed on Hansard if they are not read in the House.
I will, therefore, ask the House if the hon. member may have leave to place the figures on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


George William Andrews: This is the statement:

Canadian exports, 1868 to 1920; with portions sent to United Kingdom, United States a-nd other countries.
Total Merchandise, the Produce of Canada
Fiscal
Years
United
Kingdom
United
States
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1880 1881 1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906 1907'
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919

17,905,808
20,486,389
22,512,991
21,733,556
25,223,785
31,402,234
35,769,190
34,199,134
34,379,005
35,491,671
35,861,110
29,393,424
35,208,031
42,637,219
39,816,813
39,538,067
37,410,870
36,479,051
36,694,263
38,714,331
33,648,284
33,504,281
41,499,149
43,243,784
54.949.055 58,409,606
60.878.056 57,903,564 62,717,941 69,533,852 93,065,019 85,113,681 96,562,875 92,857,525
109,347,345
125,199,980
110,120,892
97,114,867
127,456,465
98,691,186
126,194,124
126,384,724
139,482,945
132,156,924
147,240,413
170,161,903
215,253,969
186,668,554
451,852,399
742,147,537
845,480,069
540,750,977
489,152,637

22,387,846
23,640,188
27,398,930
26,715,690
29,984,440
33,421,725
30,380,556
25,683,818
27,451,150
22,160,666
22,131,343
23,149,909
26,762,705
31,015,109
41,687,638
36,096,501
31,631,622
32,618,593
31,503,292
32,273,033
37,323,161
36,449,288
33,291,207
34,829,436
31,317,857
33,813,802
29,297,598
32,303,773
34,460,428
39,717,057
34,361,795
34,766,955
52,534,977
67,983,673
66,567,784
67,766,367
66,856,885
70,426,765
83,546,306
62,180,439
90,814,871
85,334,806
104,199,675
104,115,823
102,041,222
139,725,953
163,372,825
173,320,216
201,106,488
280,616,330
417,233,287
454,873,170
464,028,183
Other
Countries

5.249.523 5,196,727 6,169,271 6,732,110 7,735,802 8,421,647 7,777,002 7,607,941 8,031,694 8,212,543
7.747.681 7,546,245 8,125,455 7,269,051 8,538,260 8,651,139 8,089,587 7,085,874 6,777,951 6,976,656 7,326,305 7,248,235 7,545,158
7.684.524 9,417,341 9,783,082
10,411,199
9,321,014
9,200,383
10,434,501
12,494,118
12,920,626
14,412,938
16,590,188
20,104,634
21,435,327
21,436,662
23,313,314
24,481,185
19.673.681 29,951,973 30,884,054 35,564,931 38,043,806 40,942,222 45,866,744 52,961,645 49,430,066 88,651,751
128,611,901
277,314,432
220,819,659
286,311,278
Total
45,543,177
49,323,304
56,081,192
55,181,356
62,944,027
73,245,606
73,926,748
67,490,893
69,861,849
65,864,880
65,740,134
60,089,578
70,096,191
80,921,379
90,042,711
84,285,707
77,132,079
76,183,518
74,975,506
77,964,020
78,297,750
77,201,804
82,335,514
85,757,744
95,684,253
102,006,490
100,586,853
99,528,351
106,378,752
119,685,410
139,920,932
132,801,262
163,510,790
177,431,386
196,019,763
214,401,674
198.414.439 190,854,946 235,483,956 180,545,306 246,960,968 242,603,584 279,247,551 274,316,553 290,223,857 355,754,600
431.588.439 409,418,836 741,610,638
1,151,375,768
1,540,027,788
1,216,443,806
1,239,492,098
*9 months ended March 31. Total 1.-15,073,715,435 Total 2.- 3,266,111,068

There should he no difference of opinion as to which would be likely to become the best market-200,000,000 people against 400,000,000-and there would be no difference of opinion, except for two things. The first is the will of our people-we cannot do anything without their will-and the second is Canada's enthusiastic desire to remain a nation. I have endeavoured, as best I know how, to come to a sane conclusion, but I must at this point absolutely disagree with my hon. friends to my left. This pamphlet which I hold in
my hand is called the " New National Policy as adopted by the Organized Farmers of Canada in the Farmers' platform drafted and issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at Winnipeg on November 29, 1918," and in it, at page 13, I find the following:
By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in flve years.
That is their platform, and while a year ago I would have jumped at it, today, I am not in favour of free trade in one year or five years with Great Britain or any other country on earth, without a quid pro quo. My reasons are briefly these. The whole foundation of our present society in Canada rests upon the tariff, and if we take away the tariff, the whole structure will fall down. I will support that contention by recounting one solitary statement of fact, given in sworn evidence before the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) this summer. If my memory serves me right, the subject under discussion was Yale locks, and the manager told the Minister of Finance that it cost him 40 per cent more to manufacture these locks in Canada than it did in the plant of the parent company in the United States. The Minister of Finance was apparently astonished and he asked:	" How do you
account for that?" Like a flash came the answer:	"We have in the parent company in the United States one machine that cost $60,000 and which performs one function. It will perform that function for all the keys in Canada in one week and it will stand idle here for fifty-one weeks in the year." In other words, while you can have a $100,000 machine in a country with a population of 100,000,000, you cannot have a $100,000 machine in a country with a population of 8,000,000.
It has been said that the tariff has been abused, but that is no argument against the principle of protection. Even if the tariff has been abused, I have just this to say on that subject:	We are still a
nation of men; we are not absolutely at the mercy of all the organizations that like to put up prices. Like myself all the other members of the House have thought this matter out and I will, therefore, not take up a minute of the time of the House in discussing it; but I have just this to say, that while protection may not always protect and while it may have sometimes

been abused, as I believe it has, we are still a democratic people; we are self-contained, and when we make up our minds to get after these people, such a movement cannot be withstood and these people will stand at the bar of outraged public opinion. If any man is taking advantage of my patriotism or the patriotism of other Canadian men who desire to be self-reliant, then some day he will answer for his action.
In conclusion, free trade as practised in England has proved to be no panacea for unrest, no panacea for profiteering, and no panacea for war. In fact, I believe the fierce competition for foreign markets, which was so ably described yesterday, had a great deal to do with bringing about the war. Until a few years ago, it was almost universally believed that to maintain peace you had to prepare for war and to have big armaments. Some people believe it to-day, but millions of people know that it is a lie. Millions of women know that it is a lie; millions of soldiers know that it is a lie. We have had the biggest preparation for peace in the shape of war material, the world has ever seen, yet we have had the bloodiest war, and in the knowledge that it is no guarantee of peace, no panacea, lies, to my mind, the hope of the world. If you once get enough people making up their minds that a certain thing is desirable, they are going to get it; they always have got it, and when there are two roads, one leading to destruction and absolute annihilation-that is war-and some other road, if you can get enough people looking for that other road they will find it. Here is a ray of hope. Already there has been published in the last year a book by a Major Douglas. I have not the time nor the ability to review his book, but I have read it, and can commend it to every hon. gentleman in this House, and to every banker and every labouring man in this country. It is not Bolshevism; it is not Socialism; it does not pull down, but it does show a way whereby we can build up and avoid war.
I think the members of our Government who attended the Peace Conference have caught the spirit of this new day too. I listened with great joy to the eloquent words of the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when he told us that at this meeting of the League of Nations, Canada was there as a nation in reality and in truth, and that she was a stronger nation for her connection with the British Empire. I also listened to the words of the hon. member for Durham, the ex-

President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who in no uncertain words said: "The world is on the march and Canada is in the van." Thank God for that. We are not hanging back and letting George do it.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment. I want to point out to hon. members that while we have hopes of a better day Douglas's plan is not yet in existence, and I am quite sure the millennium is not here; but we have got the amendment. That, I think, will bring almost any man out of the clouds. It did not take me very long to make up my mind what I was going to do with respect to it, but it did make me think a little bit just the same. I asked myself the questions: What are you here for? Who sent you? What is your job? And I came to the conclusion that I had been sent here under very definite instructions to carry out what was the real issue-the Conscription Act. I do not know what all my constituents thought on all the planks that have been carried out by the Government since, but on that one issue there is no doubt in the world where they stood, because it was the sole topic in my election. I came down here to help push that thing through with all my force, and I did it. I believed in it, and I have this to say about that Act. If we have another war, we will have conscription not only of the men from 18 to 25, but of every man in this country, and in saying that I have not the faintest doubt that I represent the overwhelming opinion among the men who fought in the war. This idea of letting a few men do it

"letting George do it"-is played out. The next thing that I came down to do, in my opinion, at least, was to see that the men who were crippled and the widows and orphans of the war got all this country could afford to pay them. I made up my mind to fight for them. The next thing- well, perhaps the less said about that the better.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that if ever there was a time when the people wanted to know what they were up against, it is now. The first requisite of an appeal to the country at the present time is a definite, clear-cut issue, and on the fiscal policy, if possible, so far as I am concerned. This the leader of the Opposition is apparently determined we shall not have. The next requisite to my mind, is a fair redistribution of seats. This the leader of the Opposition also firmly declines to have. If we do not have redistribution before the election w'e will have,

in effect, more people disfranchised five times over than were disfranchised in 1917. We should certainly have at least one or the other of these requisites, if not both, namely, a clear-cut issue and representation by population. I shall therefore vote against the amendment.
' Mr. WILLIAM ASBURY BUCHANAN (Lethbridge) : Mr. Speaker, I usually speak briefly, but I question very much whether I can conclude my remarks in the short space of time remaining before the House will adjourn for this sitting, but I do not object to making a start and then adjourning the debate. In the effort to condense my remarks I cannot avoid saying what has been said by other speakers in the debate, and that is a word of congratulation to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), I am going to say that I thought so highly of the Prime Minister at the time, not because I agreed with his policy or his past course, but of the man personally, that I sent him my congratulations while I was travelling west on the train. I want to say this of the Prime Minister, and it is something that has not been mentioned. He has demonstrated during the time I have been in parliament real industry, and in that respect he is an example especially to the younger men who come into this House, because if we do not display industry we will not get very far. The Prime Minister has been a remarkable example of tireless industry.
What I have arisen for is largely to explain my position. Still, I question very much whether there is any reason why I should explain it, because last year when sitting on the Government side of the House, I expressed my own views on public questions. In order to have more freedom, and especially since a new government, with a new leader, had been formed-I would not say a new policy had been announced-I felt I would be much freer in what has been termed No Man's Land. First of all, I want to say that from the beginning, and for months prior to the formation of the Union Government, I was an advocate of a Union Government, and when the Union Government was formed I supported it for the purposes for which it was formed, and that was for the conduct of the war. I agree entirely with the position that has been taken by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I went back from this city in 1917 to my constituency, and my old party friends supported me because I told them I was supporting conscription, and supporting Union Government, to carry out that policy and all other necessary war measures, but that in every other respect I was adhering to the principles I had always advocated in this House.
That is my position to-day, and for that reason I am not prepared to support the Government that has been constituted since the last session of Parliament. The people returned to power in 1917 a Government headed by the late Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). The Prime Minister who led that Government has resigned, and a new Prime Minister with a new policy and a new name for his party has assumed office. Now, holding the views I do, I cannot accept the policy of that party, though I have the very highest admiration for its leader. My judgment is that the people in 1917, when they voted for the candidates in that election, voted with a war mind. The war was the foremost question in their minds, and consequently their decision was based upon their desire to win the war, and with no thought whatever about the domestic problems that might develop as a result of the war. That being the case, the people should have an opportunity of (expressing themselves on the policies that are uppermost at the present moment, the domestic questions that are engaging their attention just now. A Gov-vernment that satisfied the people on war issues may not satisfy them on peace issues; they may differ entirely in their views in these two respects. As I said, I did not abandon the views I held in peace times; I consider that we have again reached the peace stage and I therefore, stand by the principles which I advocated in the past.
Another thing that we should keep in mind is the fact that spart from the selection of a new leader, the constitution of a new party, and the outlining of what has been called a new platform, there are other reasons, why the people should have an opportunity to express their views at the present time. The official Opposition has a new leader, and there has come into existence an entirely new party with a platform. Why should not the people be given an opportunity to express their opinion on the merits of the respective parties that exist to-day? May I say, at this juncture, that we have not had an election in Canada on purely domestic problems since 1911? Ten years have elapsed since we have had an election in which the issues of ordinary times could be discussed

and decided. The only election we have had between 1911 and the present date was the election of 1917, which was fought out entirely on a war issue, and it is very important at the present time that an election should be held. My attitude last session, to which I still adhere, was that it was possible to have a census and redistribution, and to have an election in 1921. I maintained that it was possible to do so if an effort had been made to expedite the census. We could have had early returns of the population of this country and could have had redistribution and an election. My statement at that time was to this effect:
I believe it would be only necessary to have one session of Parliament following the present session before we could have redistribution and before an appeal could be made to the country on the basis of representation in accordance with the census of 1921.
I am going to be quite frank and say that if the Government give to me and to this House an assurance that they will carry out the purpose of the amendment to the amendment I shall be satisfied for the present. But I go further and say that no contentious questions should be brought up in this House until a redistribution bill has been drafted and we are ready to go to the country. I am put in this position: If I vote for the amendment to the amendment, I am practically saying, and I do say, that it is possible to have a redistribution this year, to have the census taken, and to have an election. But I know that the Government we have here at the present time must exist to formulate that redistribution, and they may come back and say: "We cannot guarantee that we can carry out what is asked for in the amendment to the amendment; it depends upon whether we have the support of the members."
Naturally, too, it depends upon whether they have my individual support; and I am not prepared to pledge my support to the Government or any party in this House on any question until I know what it is and exactly what is going to be discussed. The Budget debate will come up later if the Government decide to carry out their programme, and if they are going to carry out the policy they have outlined in the address, I am bound to differ from them and, therefore, to vote against them. But I know what will be said. It will be stated that if I want this redistribution before an election I must support the Government in order to get it. Now, I cannot go so

far. The Government should give us an assurance of a real desire on their part to provide redistribution this year, to expedite the census, to have an election immediately, and to avoid during this session the discussion of all controversial questions, or give me freedom to act as I think best in the interests of the country.
I believe that Western Canada is entitled to increased representation at this time; but if I must support the Government on other questions in order to keep it in existence so that that representation may be provided, I am placed in a position in which I do not wish to remain. I am not going to tie myself up to any party on any question in order to have something-done which I think is necessary at this particular time. I feel that the West would be deprived of its proper representation in this House for probably four or five shears if we had not a redistribution, but I do not want to be tongue-tied or to be held down by any promise to support the Government until it decides to have a redistribution and go to the country. If it accepts the proposal that it should go to the country this year under the terms of the amendment to the amendment and along the lines I have mentioned, I shall be satisfied. I am going to try to conclude before the House rises, although I had intended to speak at greater length. However, I can place my views on other matters briefly before the House'. I came into this House in 1911 and during all the time I have been a member, I have been an advocate of a clear-cut policy which is in entire contradiction to the views expressed in the address in regard to the tariff. Now, if I accepted the views put forward by the Government in the Address I should be contradicting the position I have taken in this House from 1911 up to the present time. It is not a question of consistency on the part of those who have advocated tariff reduction in the past. The question that concerns me, is: what attitude have I taken; have I been consistent; and do I intend to remain consistent? I am not looking forward to the future, but I intend to remain if I possibly can a consistent advocate of policies which I believe are in the best interests of the country. I know that the Prime Minister has attempted to put all those who believe in a low tariff, or people who believe in freedom of trade, into a certain category, the free trade class. I

refuse to be placed there. But I am an advocate of free trade wherever it is in the best interests of the majority of the people. I am in favour of low tariff where it is in the interests of the bulk of the people. I am not prepared to destroy industry and capital, and that is the bugaboo that has always been raised. But I am satisfied that in the budget that will be brought down by the Government the outstanding principles of the national policy will be maintained.
Because we find those men in the country who have long been advocates of high protection loyally supporting the Prime Minister. Well, I cannot join in the support of the Prime Minister along with individuals who agitate high protection; they would not be proper company for me with the views I hold.
Now, having promised the people who returned me in 1917 that I would not abandon the principles that I supported in the past, and having reached the stage where there is a definite declaration on the part of the Government that it is going to adhere entirely to the principle of protection as it has been in existence in this country for forty years, I have come to the parting of the ways. If it is impossible for the Government to concede the point that I have mentioned in connection with redistribution, I cannot possibly vote confidence in a government that expresses opinions of that sort, because I would be declaring confidence in a government in whose principles I did not believe. That would not be fair to the Government, it would not be fair to me, and it would not be fair to the people who have elected me in the past.
And so my position is this:	Now that
we have passed the war stage and are reaching what we hope are normal times I am still in the position that the Prime Minister was always in and adhering to the views that he advocated prior to the war. That is all. I am there and that is where I intend to remain until I am convinced that I am wrong. Up to the present I have not been so convinced. It was my intention to speak on other questions this afternoon but I shall have an opportunity of doing so later. I shall therefore close my remarks, feeling that I have placed before the House in condensed form my views on the amendments and on the main motion.
Upon Mr. F. F. Pardee (West Lambton) and Mr. F. L. Davis (Neepawa) rising to speak.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for West Lambton has the floor.


Mr. PARDEE:: I move the adjournment of the Debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 3, 1921 The House met at Three o'clock.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. LAPOINTE On the Orders of the Day:


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my parliamentary [DOT] life I rise to a question of privilege. The Ottawa Journal of this morning has, among others, the following headline over a report of the remarks I had the privilege to make in the House yesterday:
Says Quebec Will Not Abide by Imperial Conference attended by Mr. Meigben.
Mr. Speaker, that is a vicious, misleading statement. I do not think I used the word "Quebec" once during my speech yesterday. I spoke as one of the Canadian representatives, not as one of the Quebec representatives, and if the Ottawa Journal bases its activities on sectionalism, I do not.
THE MEMBER FOR LEEDS On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to ask
the Prime Minister if in the opinion of the Government the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) has not forfeited his right to a seat in this House by virtue of his having accepted a position as one of the arbitrators on the board which is to value the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: I do not know that the Government gives legal opinions, especially on the floor of Parliament. If the hon. gentleman will submit his question in the usual way on the Order Paper, he will receive an answer.



RELEASE OF PRISONERS FROM STONY MOUNTAIN PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve) :: In view of the release of three

prisoners from Stony Mountain Penitentiary, may I ask the Minister of Justice if he will lay on the table of the House at the earliest moment the papers in connection with that release?


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I am not aware what prisoners the hon. gentleman refers to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I refer to the three gentlemen who were sent to jail in connection with the Winnipeg strikes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware that these gentlemen were released; I shall make inquiry. I understand that they served their time. I may say that the immediate dealing with these matters is at present in the hands of the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). I may add also that it is a well established practice of this House that papers with regard to releases under the Ticket-of-Leave Act should not be brought down to the House, except, perhaps, in some exceptional cases. The practice has had the sanction of numerous Ministers of Justice, and in particular had the sanction and approval, on an occasion which I remember, of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I do not think it is neecssary now to go into the reasons for that practice-reasons which Parliament has accepted on numerous occasions. However, if there be any papers relating to these cases, I will examine them and see whether there are any which should be brought down.



THE MEMBER FOR ST. ANTOINE, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the Prime Minister aware of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) having made any public declaration to the effect that he had tendered his resignation as a member of this Parliament? Has the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government received an intimation from that hon. gentleman of his desire or intention to tender his resignation?


Arthur Meighen: I
have seen no public declaration made by or on behalf of the hon. member for St. Antoine, nor have I received any communication that I can give to the House.
	*



BY-ELECTIONS TO FILL VACANCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if he can inform Parliament when the writs will be issued for by-elections to fill the vacancies that exist in the constituencies of Ya-maska, Quebec; York-Sunbury, New Brunswick; Medicine Hat, Alberta; and West York, Ontario?


Arthur Meighen: I
am able fully to conform to precedent in that regard, and to tell my hon. friend that the writs will be issued in due course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right hon. friend if the writs will be issued simultaneously, or at different times?


Arthur Meighen: That will appear when the writs are issued.



CANADIAN LOAN TO ROUMANIA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: (Cham-bly and Vercheres):	I would like to
direct the attention of the Government to an item which appeared in the Montreal Star yesterday regarding the Canadian loan to Roumania. A despatch which purports to come from Ottawa states that the interest due on April 1st, amounting to $1,475,234 has not been paid by Roumania, and that the Government were trying to make a settlement with that country. I would like to know if it is true that the interest has not been paid, and on what basis the new settlement is to be made.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: I do not know that that is a
question of sufficient urgency to justify our taking up the time of the House in discussing it at the moment. But one thing I can tell my hon. friend at once is that as yet the Roumania interest has not been paid.


Joseph Archambault: If I may be
allowed, Mr. Speaker-Surely if the interest has not been paid and if a new basis is being determined for a settlement, the House is entitled to be informed as to the nature of that settlement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The House is, no doubt, entitled to know, but not at this stage unless the Government chooses to give the information.


Joseph Archambault: The House is
entitled to know before the settlement is decided upon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not upon the Orders
of the Day:



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Janies Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Campbell, resumed from Wednesday, March 2.
Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if it will not be too much for the right hon. leader of the Government to bear, open remarks by offering him my sincere congratulations upon his attainment of the high position which he now occupies. He has brought dignity to the office; he fills it with dignity, and the worst wish that any hon. member on this side has for him is that he will not be permitted to bear that dignity too long.
It was of great interest to me to listen the other night to the speech delivered in this House by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie). One reason why I listened to his speech with such interest is that we have sat in this House a long time together, and the other and principal reason if his absolutely chameleon-like change of policy. It appears to be customary that the moment a man, no matter what his former political views may have been, attains office, and perhaps, in order that he may retain office, the old faith and the old shibboleths go and he seems to cut his coat according to his cloth in the way of politics; a strange virus seems to get into his blood, something that was not there before, something that, I may say, does not seem to suit him very well.
My hon. friend launched into an argument on the tariff, and he stated that the Opposition had done everything in its power to avoid the issue. He said further: What we want to know is just where they stand. If I know anything of the members of the Opposition, they are not attempting to avoid any issue as regards the tariff. When the tariff is brought down and when the proper time comes to discuss the tariff, every hon. member on this side will be found amply prepared to state his position. There is before the people to-day only one issue and it is not the tariff. What my hon. friends opposite would like, and what
they are endeavouring to do on every available occasion, is to draw the tariff herring across the track so as to keep the people from thinking of the real issue, which is whether my hon. friends opposite should resign or not. It has been proved in the by-elections that that is the issue to-day, and on that issue I purpose speaking.
As I have already stated, a most chameleon-like change has come over the Minister of Militia and Defence in regard to his fiscal ideas. It is not so long ago that members on this side of the House introduced certain resolutions in regard to the tariff, the first one that I remember being in 1914, and another one in 1917. The first resolution was introduced in 1914 by Mr. Knowles of Moose Jaw, who was then a member of this House. This is Mr. Knowles' resolution:
That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when, in the interest of the farmers, and consequently in the interest of the whole of Canada, the duties on agricultural implements should be forthwith removed.
The present Minister of Militia and Defence had some words to say upon that subject and they were no uncertain utterances; they were as clear-cut as they possibly could be. This is what he said, in speaking in this House on the 11th March, 1914, as reported at page 1566 of Hansard:
Mr. Hugh Guthrie (iSouth Wellington) : I desire, before the motion is put, to offer a few remarks upon what I consider to be one of the most important questions with which this House has had to deal during the present session. We on this side of the House, and, I fancy, some members on the other side of the House, are not quite satisfied with the wave of the hand by which the right hon. the Prime Minister sought to relegate this important matter to the ash heap, or, at all events, to some place outside the precincts of this Chamber. The question is too big and too far-reaching in its consequences to be dealt with by the Prime Minister in a ten-minute speech, and by the silence of the members of a party numbering 130 or 140 in this Chamber. I have no doubt that there are many hon. members, supporters of the Government, who are very keenly interested in this matter-many of them representing rural ridings; many of them representing, as I do, both rural and urban populations-and who desire to give free expression to their thought and opinion upon this grave question.
And so on. I read that simply as an introduction to the speech which he delivered. Later in his speech the hon. gentleman referred to the Prime Minister of that day ami said of that right hon. gentleman:
He had not heard the case very fully argued ; he said the Government would consider the question, but he stated, as deliberately as a

man could state it in the House, that on account of the trusts and combines of the United States it would not be possible to give free agricultural implements to the people of Canada. There is only one thing left for him to do, and that is to reduce the tariff on agricultural implements to a minimum. In my view, that will not be as satisfactory as the complete abolition of the duties upon agricultural implements.
Further on he said:
If these trusts cannot take possession of the British market, which is a free market, how could they take possession of the Canadian market if it were made a free market? To my mind, there is nothing in the argument of the Prime Minister. It was not a reason for refusing to abolish the duty; it was the merest kind of an excuse.
Then he went on:
I rose on this occasion chiefly because I think that some member from the province of Ontario should interject some remarks into this debate to show that the demand for agricultural implements is by no means limited to the western provinces of Canada. The riding which I have the honour to represent in this House is about equally made up of urban and of rural inhabitants. I am satisfied that, irrespective of party, the people engaged in agriculture in the county of Wellington, north or south, would hold up both hands for the boon of free agricultural implements.
Then he continued:
So I believe it is in the great province of Quebec and in the Maritime Provinces; certainly it is in the great western provinces of Canada. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the demand is as broad as is the country. I then ask the Government: Why not accede to a demand of that kind when your revenue is going to suffer so little and when no Canadian industry is going to be injured?
He said further:
I desire in a few words to show that the removal, the entire abolition of the Canadian duties on agricultural implements, would not do an injustice to a single manufacturing establishment in Canada.
Therefore, in 1914, the present Minister of Militia and Defence was absolutely certain that free agricultural implements would be a great boon to the people of the Dominion; that it would help in cheapening food, and that it would not do one iota of injury to Canadian industries. Those are three very good reasons, and I submit that they still hold good to-day. Just one more quotation from my hon. friend's address:
I, for one, believe that of all the industries in Canada the agricultural implement industry is the one now best able to stand without the support of any customs tariff at all.
That was on the motion of Mr. Knowles. In 1917, this motion was moved by the Hon. Frank Oliver, then member for Edmonton:

That in the opinion of this House it would be in the public interset if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide:
1.	That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
What did the Minister of Militia say at that time with respect to clause 2 of the resolution? He said this:
I therefore favour that portion of the amendment which provides that agricultural machinery shall be upon the free list. I favour the whole of the free list as set out in paragraph 2 of the amendment.
He further says:
And when I look at the trade returns and find that in item after item which it is now proposed to put upon the free list the revenue collected is so small as to be negligible, it seems to me clear that the time has come when the relief asked for in this clause of the amendment should be granted.
The Minister of Militia the other night directed his attention principally to the Farmers' party. He produced a catalogue and declaimed loudly against it. Well, that is quite within his privilege, so far as I am concerned, but I want to ask this:	If the
Farmers' party go on advocating, as they do advocate, and as we on this side of the House have advocated, that certain articles should be put upon the free list, does it lie in the mouth of any hon. member of this House, even the Minister of Militia himself, to find such fault with the Farmers' party that one would think they were doing some great national harm in expressing their views? Even if the farmers do not buy their agricultural machinery at home, but in the United States, there is this much to be said: the duty goes into the treasury of the people of Canada, and not to the manufacturers. Why, Sir, the Minister of Militia talked as if it was a matter of absolute disloyalty to buy anything outside of one's own country. Sir, until the millennium comes I think the people are going' to buy where they can buy cheapest. It struck me as I heard that portion of the Minister's remarks, that I could see the beginning of the old flag waving again. Disloyalty for the farmers to buy in the cheapest market? Who has the right to accuse of disloyalty any class that acted so well as the farmers have done during the past few years? I say that such language comes not well from the Minister, and that that sort of argument should not be made.

In passing, I noticed the other day the report of a speech hy an hon. member of the Senate, expressing the opinion that in view of the Fordney Bill which has just passed both houses in the United States there should be reprisals by the Dominion of Canada. Now I do not believe that that is a proper policy, or ever will be a proper policy, to pursue, either for the nation or for the individual. You will never get far down the road by adopting reprisals as a nation along these particular lines. The thing for the people of this country to do, so far as that question is concerned, is to keep their heads level and to attend to their own business along fiscal lines as it should he attended to, and let the other nations look out for themselves.
I desire now to take up what to my mind is the real issue before the people of this country. The Minister of Militia the other evening quoted many precedents to show that so far as the Government was concerned it was carrying out the will of the people in retaining office. Well, if precedents are to count, all I can say is this, that my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), in the excellent speech he made yesterday, with the precedents that he quoted absolutely swept the ground from under the feet of the Minister of Militia. I do not believe there is any judge who, hearing the matter argued legally, would not say that the precedents quoted hy the hon. member for Quebec East outweighed the precedents quoted by the Minister of Militia. But, Sir, I am not concerned with precedents in this case. They do not appeal to me here, and for this reason: precedents ought not to weigh in the case before us because there was an absolute promise by this Government that on the conclusion of the war they would go to the country. It was plainly and distinctly understood, if ever anything in this world was understood, that that Government was formed for war purposes, and war purposes only; that it would endure only during the life of the war; and that when the war was concluded the people would he consulted. Why should the Government not have consulted them before now? The people of Canada have realized in the last year more than they ever realized before-because up to last year they had not taken the matter into their serious consideration-that since 1911 they have not had one single iota of a chance to pass upon questions affecting the Dominion of Canada. There has been no discussion upon public platforms; there 31
has been no dissemination of opinion; there has been no attempt so far as our own political questions are concerned to educate the people. Therefore, I say that in view of that promise, which the people of Canada absolutely believed would be carried out, there is one thing, and one thing only for this Government to do, and that is to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the people.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to the by-elections. Let us take the last five by-elections. The Government won three out of five. Now three of those elections were absolutely hand-picked, and in two of them ministers of the Crown were running. Can that he considered an expression of public opinion? Does anybody mean to say that because a few thousands of the millions of voters in Canada have expressed their opinion, that is a mandate for the Government to continue in office? I distinctly say it is not, and I believe the people of this country take the same view.
The Minister of Militia seemed to feel rather badly-perhaps his were only crocodile tears-about the "remnant" of Liberalism in Ontario. Let us admit for argument's sake that there are not many in this House, hut what they are makes up for any lack of numbers. I want to tell the Government this: There is the healthiest "remnant" of Liberalism in the province of Ontario that there has been for many years, and it just wants a chance to act. There is Liberalism in the province of Ontario, the same old Liberalism it has always been, standing for freedom of thought and freedom of speech, well-settled theories and policies; and the Liberals of Ontario are quite content that these theories and these policies and these doctrines shall be tested out at the earliest possible moment. If the minister is so confident that there is only a remnant of it left, and that that remnant cannot accomplish much, one would at least suppose that under such circumstances the Government would have sufficient courage to go to the country and stand by the result. But the great trouble is that they lack any courage. This Government is like the clinging vine; it shoots out its tendrils in the direction of little byelections which they calculate upon winning. Sometimes the tendrils do not find any purchase, they break, and down comes the vine; although occasionally the tendril succeeds in hanging on. But in each case in which it has hung on, the success has been



of no credit to the Government, because the constituency has been hand-picked. But while, in my opinion, at any rate, no Government knowing, as this Government knows, the attitude and the frame of mind of the people of Canada, should continue in office. Nevertheless this Administration persists in hanging on, it still clings tenaciously to its position. It will not be responsible to the people of Canada, whose opinions and desires it absolutely disregards. Why, under these circumstances, the Government continues to carry on, is a state of mentality on its part which I cannot grasp. I would at least say, in their position: Come on and we will have a fight; it will not be bloody; there will be a good deal of gas but that will not matter so long as we fight it out and see who is the winner: let us find out whom the people want as their servants, and when they have made their choice we are ready to obey their commands. Surely that is only logical and right, and I ask the Government to take this course. But, to my mind, the milk in the cocoanut was spilled by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) before he sat down. It is quite evident why they do not want to go to the country. We got a little inkling of it from the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. Gauthier), but we got it all from the Minister of Militia; and that was that on the grounds of equality there would be many times greater representation in the cities than in the rural districts. The Government know that their policy appeals to the big interests, and the big interests live in the cities. So that with a redistribution such as they propose to give them, the cities shall send such representatives as will vote in their interests. The rural representation, they expect, will be cut down to as great a degree as possible, while the urban they will build up, and build up, as I have no doubt they will do if they last long-enough to make a redistribution-and make it in such a way that only their own supporters shall come from the cities. That is the reason there is no election and no appeal to the people; that is the reason why public opinion is being flouted day by day and the public are being told by this Government, wrho forget that they are the servants of the people: You attend to your own business and let us alone and we will attend to ours, and when we are ready we will ask for your advice. That is the whole kernel of that portion of their propaganda. The Minister of Militia the other night, by sort of process of elimination, finally figured out that although the Government did not

deserve the confidence of many portions of the Dominion of Canada, still they had the confidence of some, and then at length he got down to the supposed fact, which he stated with great vehemence:	"At least
we have the confidence of the House of Commons." Well, it would appear to me when I arrived here about two weeks ago that possibly they had and possibly they had not. But I thought that if there was one thing which they did not have it was the confidence of the Commons; and I have no doubt to-day that if hon. members sitting on the other side of the House voted as their hearts dictate and not as the glory of office impels, they would vote in such a way as to show quite plainly that this Government has not the confidence either of the people or of the House of Commons.
Sir, I say again that precedents matter not. There was a promise and that promise should be absolutely carried out. We have the strange spectacle of two ex-ministers of the Administration sitting on this side of the House, both having resigned for the same reason and both of them now antagonistic to the Government. Is not that palpably an evidence that the Government has not the confidence of the House and certainly not of the pepole? When any Government, as this has done, has seen its followers leave it day by day, month by month, and year by year, it surely can come to one conclusion only, and that is that it is not wanted and that another is wanted in its stead. The great bete noir to hon. gentlemen opposite is the Farmers' party. Well, I hold no brief for that party, but I do say, as a Liberal, that if the farmers want a party of their own and desire to express certain views, they should be at perfect liberty to carry out that idea. This is an absolutely free country. Why, therefore, should there be any bitter feelings against any section of the people who desire to give expression to their views? Surely it has not come to such a pass in Canada that none can get together and express views or advance theories. It it has, then it is a sorry plight for this Dominion. But I do not believe that such is the case.
Now, I have only this to ask the Government, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that they trust the people. The people are not often wrong. In this strong, virile young country the people know pretty well what they want, and if they do go wrong they will very quickly get right again. I say, therefore, that the Government ought to trust the people and give them an opportunity

to say what Government they want at the present time. In other words, I commend to the members of the Government, in all fairness to the people of Canada, this exhortation: "Play up, play up, and play the game!"


Mr. FRED LANGDON DAVIS (Nee-pawa) :: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with
the subject matter of the Address, may I express regret that the right hon, gentleman (Sir Robert Borden), who led the Government previously to the present Prime Minister, is in such a state of health that he is unable now to take any large share in the affairs of the country. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address and to express my appreciation of the manner in which they discharged their duties in this respect.
In 1908, when the present Prime Minister first sought election, I was a constituent in his riding and ineffectually did my best to keep him from coming here. I can now congratulate him on his brilliant and rapid rise to the position of Prime Minister. He is to my certain knowledge a true Conservative, tenacious of principles, and able in the advocacy of them, and the times are going to demand a man of such characteristics as their champion. These opinions are all going into the crucible, and they will have to undergo considerable refining and much change. While Union Government lasted, under the former Prime Minister, I endeavoured to give it my full support, and did so support it in all matters for which it was primarily formed. But it was inevitable that, in view of the procedure followed in the formation of this Government and the new issues, I must seek new alignments. Hence I find my. self in "No Man's Land."
There is no political terminology apt in description of Union Government: It was not one party, it was not a coalition, it was not a fusion. When we first met in joint caucus I was surprised. During the war I said nothing, but in the second session I advocated a change to a coalition basis. I discussed this with some of the ministers. In the third session there was a caucus of Liberal Unionists to consider the future course. The decision was, to go on for the present as we had been doing. With that decision began the disintegration of the Liberal Unionist group and the present difficulties of the Government.
Sli
Because of lack of clear political definitions no political action in the constituencies was possible. When the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Calder) recently told the West that the Government had been too busy for political activity he talked bunkum. If we had been a coalition each member could have organized; but as the case stood we could do nothing. For a Conservative Unionist to organize, looked like throwing the Liberal Unionists overboard; and for a Liberal Unionist to organize was to seek a separate career and throw the Conservative Unionists overboard. We could not appeal to both until the future course was in some measure determined. The consequence was that as time went on confusion grew in the ridings; and as elections must be faced the confusion must be ended. As no preparation had been made in the ridings it only remained for the Government party in the House to attempt a fusion. This fusion is no wider than the House. If the Peterborough election demonstrates anything it is that the fusion has not included the electorate. Many Conservatives deprecated but they will finally accept it. Many Liberal Unionists doubted it and will finally reject it.
There were two opportunities for a coalition-one when the Government was formed and one after the war. Both were lost. The result is that the Government finds itself to-day out of touch with the electorate and generally unprepared for an election; and it needs time, desperately needs time.
Though forseeing the present position for myself, I supported the Government last session because it proposed to balance its expenditure with taxation. As the whole is greater than any part, so it seemed to me that to get a balance of taxation over expenditure was more important than an exact justice in any of the items making up that taxation. I had differed with the Government in its 1919 Budget, and last year re-stated some of my objections to its tariff policy. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said he was smoked out. He and some of his associates think I stayed until I bear on my garments the odor of the smoke that expelled him. I assure him that the fire never touched me.
In 1919, in association with a distinct group of Liberals in coalition, I could have continued in support of the Government, for issues had arisen which seemed to me important enough to justify such a course

could I have had assurance such as a coalition of that sort could give. Without such assurance, in complete surrender to the fiscal opinions held by four-fifths of the Government supporters, I found myself, on other issues, in fundamental disagreement, and so departed.
In the main I agree with the Progressive platform-at least as interpreted by the leaders of that party. The recall I would never accept, as' it is not consonant with our system of representative government and degrades a member no matter what may be his service. I agree also with the leaders of the party that it must extend its membership with all classes of the community and free itself of any class organization or control.
With regard to the Liberal party, the presence in their ranks of many strong protectionists hampered Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier throughout his career, and forced him to opportunism on this question. At this, stage in our affairs, despite the fact that this fiscal question is not of the essence of Liberalism, it is desirable that a government should come in unanimous as to protection or decided tariff reductions. The Liberal leader has not spoken with the same voice in the East as in the West; this opportunism is inopportune now. If he could tell the West his sympathy with its desires for reductions, he should be able to say to Montreal something thereon beyond this-that it is overshadowed by the larger question of restoring representative government. If the Liberal party had in 1911 to suffer the loss of its Toronto protectionists, 1921 may be the time to lose its Montreal protectionists; the omens forecast it.
The foregoing sufficiently discloses the attitude I shall take on the tariff. Let this be added. In examining the tariff it should be borne in mind that we have had practically the same policy for over forty years. No country will accept protection but on the principle that eventually competition among the encouraged industries will bring prices to the general world level. Canada before the war was one of the dearest countries of the world to live in. Have we got the competition expected? If not, why? Have combines defeated it? Has our tariff become an Old Age Pension instead of a Mother's Allowance?
This nation is now the upholder of Stat-ism in its operation of a combined system of transportation by railways and steamships. The freight rates decision and policy thereon of the Government, have

not been fully satisfactory to the country and I trust there may be laid before us some plan of getting better results. The operation of the railways calls for large improvement and possibly this will be effected when the Grand Trunk is finally taken over. If the Government woiild appoint a committee of the House to reporf thereon, I believe the country would approve.
In the past I have urged the attention of the House and the Government to consideration of a committee on Estimates as a great improvement in means of retrenchment. In other respects as well, this would have important results. The Minister of Finance led me to expect that a committee to consider and report thereon would be favoured by the Government and I take the earliest opportunity to refer to it. Discussion of it will be possible when a resolution now on the Order Paper is reached.
On the question of Imperial Relations, I have been pleased to see that the last two Prime Ministers of Canada have been in agreement in policy. This is a subject that should not come into party politics, and I regretted yesterday to hear the utterance of the member for East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) thereon. Not a regard for the public interest, but party acrimony spoke them. I trust an opportunity to discuss on the floor of the House, the policy Canada shall pursue may be afforded.
The excess profits tax has long been marked for extinction as an unjust system in peace and directly making for inflation. As the British Government has announced that there it will be discontinued, it is to be hoped that it may be reformed out of existence here.
The natural resources are more strongly than ever being demanded by the Western Provinces. The position of those provinces as inferior members of Confederation must be reformed so that the same principles shall prevail in all, that no grievance as to status may mark our full stature of nationhood.
Finally, with regard to the sub-amendment which I have seconded, its first consideration is the country's interest, and not the tactics of party strife. The Government's supporters who demand redistribution, as I did last year, must recognize that without a miracle the Government must disappoint them. As it cannot recognize, and may very probably be defeated, any Budget adopted this year cannot settle business conditions. If the Government can carry its Budget, and as obviously it

seeks to make the tariff the next issue, it cannot let that issue stale by postponing its appeal to 1922. Add the three components -inability to organize until the eve of an election, unsettled business, and an issue shaped to its liking, and the result is undoubtedly an election this fall. If the interests of the country are consulted, a redistribution will be made before this session closes and a House properly representative will be returned to deal with all the many great and disputed questions.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek) : Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to associate myself with all that has been already said in a complimentary way of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and also of the mover and seconder of the Address. I particularly desire to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid). I think in the few words he contributed he gave excellent advice to the Prime Minister.
Now, coming to the particular questions before the House, it is not my intention to devote very much time to the resolution, for I think the ground has been almost entirely covered; there may be one or two phases of it which I may touch upon if time will permit. In the meantime I wish particularly to direct my remarks to some of the matters discussed by the right hon. the Prime Minister during his tour of Canada shortly after his elevation to the chief citizenship of the Dominion. Some of those statements reflect specifically on the people whom he describes as being particularly represented by this group. In justice to myself, to our organization and to the people referred to, I deem it my duty to deal with some of those statements.
The Prime Minister directed his attention to the farmers first, I believe, during the by-election in Colchester, when he described them as being in alliance with, I think he termed them, seditionists, wreckers, Bolshevists and other people whose doctrines were preached only in one country in the world at the present time. To this statement, Sir, I take the strongest exception.
4 p.m. I do not think that a grosser misrepresentation was ever made of any class or group of people. I shall therefore give a few illustrations to show to hon. members and to the people just the position that the farmers assumed during the crucial period in the history of our country. It is not pleasant for me to have to deal with this matter, and up to the present time I have refrained from
referring to it in this House, but my duty now compels me to demonstrate the absolute baselessness of the statement of the Prime Minister. I will be as brief as I can and will commence at a point shortly after the wpr broke out.
In the month of February, 1915, we held a convention of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Association and a movement was started, known as the Patriotic Acre Movement. At that time a plan was undertaken whereby every member in our organization who possibly could would make a contribution towards a fund by donating a certain number of bushels of wheat produced on his land. The net result of that movement was that during the following summer an entire trainload of wheat, consisting of forty cars, was delivered at the port of Montreal free on board a transport to the order of the British Government. My hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) corrects me-it was a trainload of flour consisting of forty 80,000-pound cars. This meant quite a large contribution. But in addition to that trainload of flour an additional $20,000 remained in the fund, and that sum has been invested in Government bonds, the interest on which, amounting to $1,000 each year, is paid over to the Children's Pavilion in connection with the sanitarium on the Qu'Appelle lakes in the province of Saskatchewan. So it will be seen from this example alone that we have not got very many Bolshevik tendencies in our organization.


William Cameron Edwards: Nobody said you had.


Mr. MAHARG:: However, I will proceed to show that we at least attempted to do our part in that time of national crisis. The House may not remember, but the farmers of Western Canada remember very well the first action the Government took in dealing with the wheat of the West. They commandeered several million bushels in fact all of the standard grades of wheat then in store at the head of the Lakes. That wheat was paid for at a price $1.20 per bushel or which approximated two-thirds of the subsequent value of the wheat of that particular crop. The farmers made no particular outcry. They took the view that if it was absolutely necessary for the Government to pursue this course, well and good. But I will have a little more to say in connection with that if I get time to touch on the appointment of the proposed commission to inquire into the grain trade. Then further action was

taken subsequent to the appointment of the Board of Grain Supervisors. Reprenta-tives of the agriculturists of Western Canada were called into conference in the city of Winnipeg, and were asked to name a price that they thought would be fair for their wheat. That conference was held and a price was submitted. The minimum price was $1.50, the maximum price was $1.90, but a flat rate of $1.70 per bushel was considered preferable. As a matter of fact the actual price which the farmers of Western Canada were paid for their wheat under the Board of Grain Supervisors' recommendation was $2.20 per bushel. So you will see that even from a mercenary point of view they oifered to take fifty cents less for their wheat than what the Board of Grain Supervisors thought was a fair price.
Now, we will go on a little further and relate another instance. In that peaceful province of British Columbia where the people are so peaceful that they raised no objection to accepting all the products of the Western farmer, on which their is no duty, or to letting us, in turn, have the products of their orchards in the form of apples and other fruits, in connection with which there is a nice little profit to them by way of duty. Nevertheless, peaceful as they are, trouble started in Vancouver. It gradually filtered through until it got into Alberta; it went from there to Manitoba, and a serious situation was arising. At the height of that trouble the one man in Canada more particularly charged with the maintenance of law and order in Western Canada than any other man came to the executive of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Organization, which was in session in the city of Regina, and, in confidence, laid the whole matter before them and asked their hearty co-operation should the worst come to the worst. In fact, he told us he was convinced that the agriculturists of the West-our organization-was the only organization that he believed could successfully cope with the situation if the worst came to the worst. Now, this man, who knows the West, I believe, better than any other man, has no thought in his mind of any Bolshevists, seditionists, or anything else of that kind being in that organization. I am citing the case of the Saskatchewan organization simply because I am quite familiar with what was done there. But I have alsolutely no reason to believe, and do not believe that any different spirit existed in the other provincial organizations.
[Mr. Maharg.I



THE ROYAL ASSENT


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, his Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
The Speaker informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Am Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the Motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Campbell, resumed.
John Archibald Maharg: Mr. Speaker, when the sitting was suspended, I was dwelling on the actions and attitude of the farmers of the West during the war period, and I want to go just a little further in that respect and say a word or two regarding their actions and contributions towards patriotic efforts during the war. The one great patriotic movement was, I believe, the Red Cross, and as regards provincial contributions towards the Red Cross, the province of Saskatchewan came second in the Dominion of Canada. A further contribution which I have in mind at the present time was that undertaken by Dr. Robertson on behalf of the relief of the devastated areas in France, and the contributions from Saskatchewan towards that fund took first place in the Dominion of Canada.
I come to the election of 1917, the crucial test of the entire Dominion as to just what action and attitude our people were going to take as regards the steps necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. What was the result in Saskatchewan? We have in that province sixteen constitu-

encies, and every one of them returned to this House a man instructed by the vote behind him to give his fullest support to everything necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. There were no vacancies whatever; the front was a solid one, and I think I can go further and say that in proportion to the vote taken, the majorities given in that province exceeded those given in any other province in Canada. I want to go just a little further to show what was the attitude of even this group, although it was referred to by the Prime Minister himself as not representing the farmers; indeed, his words as quoted, were that "the Crerar bunch did not represent the farmers." I am not going to argue the point as regards representing the farmers; evidently, the idea that he was trying to impress upon the people by his words was that we were more or less of a Bolshevik class. To disprove any such idea as that, I think I have in sight sufficient evidence, namely, the fact that 50 per cent of the total group of crossbenchers had sons in khaki during the war. That should prove that they are not too bad a kind of "Bolsheviks," even if some people should try to tag them with that name.
I come to the last feature, the final proof of their attitude and their sincerity. A couple of months or so ago at our convention in Saskatchewan, we unveiled an honour roll which, I think, for a provincial organization, cannot be exceeded in numbers by any other organization in Canada. We had a scroll in the neighourhood of four feet square, and it was covered with names as closely written by a pen as it was possible to write them. I have not the exact number, but I should say that it contained the names of close to one thousand men who had made the last and supreme sacrifice for their country. It seems, indeed, rather strange that, while the heart-wounds were still bleeding, the Prime Minister of this country should endeavour to hold up the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and others closely connected to them, as a group of people seeking an alliance with those who had not the best interest of our country at heart. Such action comes with very bad grace from him; further, it very ill becomes the Prime Minister of this country, or even anyone supporting his Government, to talk of "alliances." Most of us have a very vivid remembrance of an alliance made, I think, in 1911, by the
then Conservative party. We may be accused of a number of things, but I do not think anyone can accuse us of forming an alliance with those who were prepared to shoot holes in the Union Jack as did the Conservative party at that time.
The Prime Minister started on his Western tour, and he was met in Winnipeg by a committee representing citizens of the province of Saskatchewan. The primary cause of the appointment of this committee was the discontinuance of the Wheat Board. There was held in a town in Saskatchewan a public meeting to which representatives of the different boards of trade of the towns along the line, municipal officers and the public generally were invited, and were present at that meeting. A committee of three was appointed, one of them being the mayor of the town in which the meeting was held and the other two being representative farmers of the districts represented at that meeting. This committee proceeded to Winnipeg to endeavour to impress the Prime Minister with the importance of reestablishing the Wheat Board. They had an interview with him, and, amongst other things, he told them that the re-establishment of the Wheat Board had never been asked for, either inside the House of Commons or out of it. I think most hon. members who were here last year know very . well whether the re-establishment of the Wheat Board for another year was asked for or not. I will take the liberty of quoting from Hansard one or two things that I said myself in respect of the Wheat Board. I will be as brief as I can. Speaking on this subject in the House of Commons I said (Hansard 1920, p. 2636) :
Just so long as the pooling arrangement exists on the other side where our wheat is marketed, we must have a similar arrangement here; if Governments are going to buy, the Governments will have to sell.
So that the Prime Minister will not be of the opinion that he was not in the House at the time I was speaking, I will quote from my remarks in connection with the Wheat Board at the time when the enabling legislation was before the House, and the Prime Minister was in his seat just across the floor from where I was speaking. The gentleman who had preceded me had been trying to convince the House that the farmers themselves were not satisfied with the Wheat Board, and in reply to that, and speaking on behalf of the farmers, I said (Hansard 1920, p. 4131) :

We are perfectly satisfied, and we have been satisfied, with the method that had been adopted in handling the grain. I should have been pleased had the hon. gentleman furnished some proof in support of his statement. If it is not satisfactory to them (the farmers), why are they, as a body, from one end of the country to the other, asking that this enabling power be given .... At their convention they went further; they asked not only enabling legislation, but that the Government continue the Wheat Board for another year. The Canadian Council of Agriculture passed a similar resolution, and recently, through their executive they have again stated that as long as there is Governmental control of buying in European markets, we must have Governmental control in Canada in regard to disposing of our wheat.
There are several other quotations I could give. Here is one (Hansard 1920, p. 4133) :
We have been told that this is paternalism. In what way is it paternalism? We have been told that we are asking for protection. I have stated in this House more than once that we never asked for protection; never asked for a fixed price to the producers. We never asked for that at all; all that we are asking for now is: Since you have forced it on us; since you have disorganized conditions, and since the price was fixed for one purpose or two purposes at the utmost, you must continue this so long as conditions remain as they are in European countries.
There are several other passages I could quote from different pages, but my time is limited. I think I have quoted enough to show that the Wheat Board had been asked for both in this House and outside.
The Prime Minister on his tour visited several western cities. I heard him speak in the city of Moosejaw on his way west, and on his return he spoke in the city of Saskatoon. When speaking of the Wheat Board there after being persistently questioned as to why the Wheat Board was discontinued, and he is reported in the Saskatoon Star of November 13, 1920, as follows:
Stand on Wheat Board Question.
He reviewed the circumstances which led to the organization last year of the Wheat Board. Immediately after the passing of the Act he was attacked in the West on its account, and up to the time control was dropped the government had no word of commendation. In the House they were criticized by those supposed to represent peculiarly the farmers' views.
Now, I have absolutely no recollection, and I do not think Hansard will show, that one word of criticism was offered from those supposed specially to represent the farmers. The report continues:
This year the board was discontinued because careful investigations showed, he said, that further control was not in the public interest. He gave as reasons the absence of whes t control in the United States and the abseace of controled buying in Britain.

Now I state, and I defy contradiction, that at the time this enabling legislation was passed there was control in the buying of wheat in Great Britain-full government control. At the time the Minister made this statement in Saskatoon, exactly the same control existed, and it exists today. I think my right hon. friend, as First Minister of this country, should be a little more conversant with the facts before he undertakes to discredit the representatives of agriculture in Western Canada.
I want to say a word or two as to the results of the discontinuation of the Wheat Board. In the first place, at the time the market was thrown open, things were going along very nicely in Western Canada. We had in sight, as we supposed, good and substantial reasons for continued prosperity throughout the West. While we did not have a heavy yield, we had a fair average yield, and the price at that time was such as to allow a fair return to the producer over and above the cost of production. But immediately the market was thrown open, or shortly after, the prices started to slump, and the result was that business so far as the West was concerned became stagnant. For the sake of illustration, I might quote a conversation I had with a merchant in one of the towns. He told me how business had been going on, and to mark the contrast he instanced several articles, among them fruit. He said that previously to the slump in the price of grain his customers were taking out apples by the box, two or three boxes at a time, but, he said, within a week after the price of grain slumped, his customers instead of buying apples by the box, were buying twenty-five and fifty cents' worth at a time and taking them home in paper parcels. He said the same was true of sugar, tea, and in fact, all the staple commodities. His customers instead of taking supplies sufficient to last two or three months were taking just enough to keep them living from hand to mouth. It was only a matter of time for the stagnation to spread, and soon the wholesalers were hit, then the jobbers and manufacturers, and eventually the labourers when the manufacturers ceased to produce. I think you can trace the general stagnation in business very largely to the fact that the Wheat Board was discontinued.
We have heard a lot about the adverse balance of trade with the United States. In my opinion, the discontinuance of the Wheat Board will be responsible, before the entire crop is marketed, to the extent

of at least $100,000,000 of our adverse balance of trade with the United States.
I do not think I am exaggerating one bit when I say that the amount of grain purchased from Western Canada by the United States at the reduced price consequent on the discontinuance of the Wheat Board will amount to at least $100,000,000 before the season is over. That is one hundred million less will be paid by the United States on account of the drop in price.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does my hon. friend contend that the price of wheat is fixed by the Wheat Board, or was when the Wheat Board was in existence, or by the European market-the Liverpool market, as it is known.


John Archibald Maharg: I am quite prepared to admit that it was the European market, and I think the European market would have been very satisfactory this year if the Wheat Board had been continued, but it was not. I might ask the hon. gentleman a question. Why is it that wheat went away down to $1.25 a bushel and then rose close to $2.00 a bushel? Had there been any change in the European conditions?
I am speaking of the price paid to the farmer at the initial point. Large quantities of our grain were sold for $1.25 at the initial point. Was there anything in the conditions of the European market or anywhere else to justify that. I might go a little further on that point. We all remember that the Winnipeg grain exchange representatives came here during last session and how the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) assisted them very materially and how caustic he was in his remarks about the Wheat Board. We have a vivid recollection of these things. They, the Winnipeg grain exchange representatives, told us that if the market were thrown open, we would get $4 or $5 a bushel for our wheat. Of course, we took that with a grain of salt, but we were prepared to continue the Wheat Board and let them secure the world's market for us. That price, however, never materialized.
Last fall, in order to be in some degree consistent with their previous statements, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange undertook to give reasons why the market had slumped, or why these prices had not been paid, and they had to take the prospective crops of the large producing countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and India, in order to make anything like the showing there was the previous year, and even then they were some 60,000,000 bushels short. But what was the actual
result? The market went away down while the harvests of these countries were merely in prospect, but when these crops were assured definitely and some of them harvested, that is, when the prospects had become a reality, the price started going up again until it reached 50 cents, 60 cents, and even 75 cents a bushel higher than it had been on the prospective results. Will my hon. friend say that the European market or world conditions had anything to do with that? I do not think so. We shall have to look elsewhere to find out why that happened. It happened simply because of the non-existence of the Wheat Board to steady the market in order that there might not be five, ten, or twenty thousand sellers to one or two buyers. No one was expecting big prices from the buyers, but we were expecting the stabilization of prices so that those who were unable to get their wheat out early would receive at least a fair proportion of return from the whole crop.
Now, another statement which the Prime Minister made in the West was that we never had the courage to move the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture as an amendment to the Budget. Well, he might have gone a little further, if he wanted to be fair, and told them that why we did not move it as an amendment for the reason, as this House knows very well, that a second amendment to the Budget is not permissible, owing to some old custom whose origin I do not know but which I think must have been conceived in medieval ages, for it is as far behind the times as anything can possibly be, and why it should continue I cannot say. Had it been in order, the platform would have been moved as an amendment. However, the next best thing was done and the Prime Minister must know that it was placed on Hansard by myself, I think in either the first or the second session I attended Parliament. It is on Hansard as public property and every one is free to scrutinize it to his heart's content, and the more that is done the better we shall like it, for we have nothing to fear.
I want to touch upon one or two remarks of the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), who, I am sorry, is not in his seat at the present moment. One of the strangest attitudes which any person could adopt was the critical view which the minister took of the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). He criticised that hon. member rather severely because he ventured to take up some of the

time of the House in dealing with the fiscal policy of Great Britain. He thought he might have been better engaged discussing the fiscal policy of Canada. Well, I am not going to say that I disagree with him there, but there were certain conditions that led up to the hon. member for Red Deer discussing the fiscal policy of Britain. During the last session of Parliament no less a personage than the present Prime Minister himself spent considerable time discussing Britain's trade policy, and drawing attention to the results of that policy as he saw them; and, among other things, Great Britain was represented as a land of paupers and incompetents, all on account of its fiscal policy. Now, I wonder if there are any Canadians small enough to deny a gentleman, especially one who hails from the Old Land, the privilege of stating to this House the exact position of Great Britain in relation to pauperism and incompetency. I think this House will agree with me that the hon. member for Red Deer very ably answered the arguments of the Prime Minister and demonstrated to him that far from pauperism and incompetency being the condition of Great Britain, matters had gone in the other direction continuously for years and years and that a change had come very shortly after she had adopted the free trade policy.
I think it very unfair for any one to try to deny any member of this House the privilege of defending not only the land of his birth but the particular part of a country in which he might have resided at a particular time.
The Minister of Militia went a little further in his defence of the Government and said that the Government must be judged on its record since last July. That is all very well, but it should work both ways. While the Prime Minister was out West speaking to the electorate there, I think he took credit for almost everything that the Conservative party had accomplished since away back in 1878. Now, if he is going to take credit for the good things which the Government preceding his own Administration achieved, then, logically, he must assume responsibility for some of the other things that do not look so well. The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) instanced the five by-elections that have taken place since July last, asserting that the Government had won three seats out of the five. I do not need to dwell on this point, as it has been touched on by some of the speakers who have addressed the House since the minister made his speech.

But there are one or two of the elections which we might refer to briefly, such, for instance, as the contests in East Elgin and West Peterborough. These seats were not selected by the Government; the other three, or at least two of them, were, and, Sir, I think we are safe in concluding that the Yale seat was very carefully considered before it was thrown open. Had there been any fear so far as that constituency is concerned, I think the present representative would have been expounding the gospel of protection through the columns of his paper rather than from a place on the floor of this House. But, Mr. Speaker, they deemed it a perfectly safe seat, and I will ay that we are very glad indeed to have the present representative (Mr. Mc-Kelvie) with us. Now, what about West Peterborough? I do not know whether it is true or not, but word has trickled through to Western Canada that there was some promise or other in connection with a dam that was to be built there. I have not heard the rumour contradicted, and I take it for granted that there must have been something to substantiate it. Well, dams are, of course, supposed to be built to stop flows. It is quite evident that that dam did not stop the flow of voter's in West Peterborough. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that instead of damming the flow of votes it had the result of damning the Government to a certain extent, and I think it would have been wise on the part of the Government to have been more circumspect in their promises. Of course, whether the dam will be built remains to be seen.
Now, I come to another part of the speech of the Minister of Militia, a part which I think was uncalled for. I think that I can prove to this House before I conclude that instead of the United Grain Growers' Company being the chief sinner there are others equally as bad, although their professions would lead you to think that they were almost sprouting wings so far as this matter is concerned. The hon. gentleman maintained that the United Grain Growers' Company were dealing solely, or practically so, in American implements. Reasons were given a year ago by myself on the floor of the House why farmers' companies were dealing in American implements, the prime reason being that the Canadian manufacturers absolutely refused to sell any kind of implement to the Farmers' Co-operative Companies. Now, Sir, I know whereof I speak, for about fifteen or sixteen years ago we formed a Co-operative Farmers'

Company locally in our own district. Among other things we decided that we would handle the large implements and carload requirements of the district, and we undertook to see if we could secure implements. Sir, we could not obtain even a wheelbarrow or a hand cultivator, let alone the big implements for the farm. We had to go to the United States to get every single one of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: They would not even sell to the returned soldiers.


John Archibald Maharg: Sir, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) a few nights ago illustrated what the Drury Government were doing in the purchase of their graders. He said they were using American road graders. I venture to make the assertion that it is quite possible the same principle extended even to the matter of supplying a Farmers government with the necessary implements for taking care of the roads. It is just possible something of the same spirit may have been manifested there; and it would be well if the member for Brantford would look into the question. It might also be well for him to inquire into the matter as regards previous governments. Are we to understand that the Whitney government never had occasion to use a road grading machine during their term of office? Or is it a fact that the Canadian machine was of such a character that it would not do the work, and when a progressive government came in they had to obtain a grader of a suitable type? There are several features in connection with this matter that are well worth looking into.
Now, while the hon. member for Brantford is in my mind I want to thank him for the kind compliment he paid to our little Group here. I am sorry, Sir, that in some respects I cannot return the favour; I wish very much I could. He spoke of the rotund figures, the ruddy countenances, and the youthful appearance of gentlemen on this side. I think I can return the compliment only to this extent that the hon. gentleman is very sprightly in appearance. I want to consider further for a time the matter of the purchase of American implements. I was about to express my sorrow that the member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) was not in the House, but I now observe him sitting opposite me, and I am very glad of the fact. About the time that the war was on-I just mention this fact so that the House may make allowance for some of the utterances of the hon. member for Regina
-the hon. member undertook to write a war pamphlet and gave it a very striking title. When I mention the title the House will be good enough to understand that the choice of the words is not mine, they were the selection of the hon. member. The title of the pamphlet is:
"After Hell-What?"


An hon. MEMBER:: That is awful. What does it mean.


John Archibald Maharg: I am merely giving the title of the pamphlet, I am not going to undertake to answer the question. I now hold in my hand an extract from that pamphlet and the peculiar thing is that it only came into my possession to-day. It really would appear as though it were an act of Providence. The extract came in by mail this morning. I knew nothing about its coming here, I made no inquiry about it; the fact is that when I opened my mail I found this extract and I am going to read it to the House. My hon. friend says in the extract:
And if our manufacturers would do business according to the foundation spirit of the protective tariff which they enjoy, instead of the least possible production with the largest possible profit, we would to-day have cities with millions and employment for hundreds of thousands more than we have.
The hon. gentleman further says:
No need then to write about getting profitable work for returned soldiers. How well the writer recalls the spirit in which Sir John Macdonald laid the National Policy: "Tall chimneys for every hamlet and work for every man." But he conceived a body of manufacturers who would be content with enlarged markets-not enlarged profits in the same old restricted market. He conceived manufacturers who would supply the need, thus employing multitudes of men. There are two ways a tariff can affect a manufacturer. He can be content with a small profit and thus hold the whole market, or he can raise his price to the level of the tariff, sell a little here and there at enormous profits and enjoy the results while the country damns him.
Now this is the significant part-and that is why I introduce it in connection with the purchase of American machinery by the United Grain Growers-this is the significant part of the whole thing. He goes on to say:
Go over to the North side of Regina and in half an hour you will see what a wrong conception the Canadian manufacturer has of the Canadian tariff. Acre after acre with foreign made goods; here and there a Canadian made machine-that exception amply testifying to the small soul and narrow vision of the manufacturer who made it.


Mr. CRERAR:: Who wrote that?


John Archibald Maharg: This is a quotation from the pamphlet to which I have referred .writ-
491:

ten by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan). I think that in itself goes to prove there must surely be others than the United Farmers who are buying American implements. Let me quote a little further:
Can we give employment to our returned men when that condition prevails? Can we he considered industrially alive when that is the established order? We Canadians have time after time declared our faith in a protective tariff, and I am a protectionist yet, but I would be darned well ashamed of myself were I a manufacturer enjoying 35 per cent tariff and still see foreigners running off with most of my preserve. There is something wrong with the Canadian manufacturer ; he wants a jolt; a head-on collision, as^ a matter of fact something that will knock him clean out of his state room into the day coach where he can get some idea of what surrounds him. Grit or Tory or Unionist has no objection to being decent to him as long as he is alive; but we are tired carrying a corpse. These dead men who imagine they are going to feed returned men on tariff are a menace to our country to-day. If they will but shut up and get busy and make goods, selling them at a reasonable profit, so that they will sell them, and thereby make more goods, thus employing returned and other men, we could forgive them. But if they start any more of this doling out tariff from their measly little shops where tariff and profit are the chief things they manufacture (except nerve), then they had better quit, for our country is in no mood to tolerate their unprogressiveness and lack of enterprise. Western Canada at least will tolerate a tariff more willingly than they will manufacturing sloth. If the tariff is designed to increase manufacture, and thus give employment, then it must do what it is designed to do, or cease to exist. A market big enough to keep every returned soldier employed exists and it is not proposed that the tariff beneficiaries shall by means of that interpretation of the tariff which yields big profits on a small output rather than small profits on a big output, prevent our returned men from engaging in the supply of that market. The contracted conception of his duty as a manufacturer enjoying exceptional privileges, which our manufacturers have, is the biggest stumbling block to-day :.n the way of getting employment for our returned men. If our manufacturers are to get the profits of a protective tariff then they must at least make an attempt to supply the goods that the tariff protects. Otherwise the tariff has no virtue. Who in Canada will say that our manufacturers have been equal to our Canadian market? Go into our stores and buy Canadian goods if you can, and there get your answer. Our warehouses the same. Wake up manufacturers, and make your factories Canadian size. If you don't the Government will be justified in wiping out every vestige of protection you have."


Mr. DUFF:: Where is the title to come in?


John Archibald Maharg: I will leave that to the
imagination of the hon. member. As I said before, I will not attempt to answer the question. But I wish to compliment the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) on his ability in writing a pamphlet that I consider deals directly and specifically with what we are troubled with to-day in so far as unemployment is concerned.


Mr. BELAND:: Will my hon. friend say when this pamphlet was published?


John Archibald Maharg: It would be perhaps two years ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: By whom?


John Archibald Maharg: By the hon. member for Regina.


Mr. COWAN:: And the hon. member for Regina stands by every word he wrote.


John Archibald Maharg: Certainly.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: Cross the floor and take a seat over here.


John Archibald Maharg: I just wish to compliment the hon. gentleman on having written the one thing that we need to consider at the present time if we are to get rid of unemployment.


Walter Davy Cowan: That is what I want done.


John Archibald Maharg: Now, Sir, I shall go a
little further with these great patriots who cry "Buy in Canada," and who were talking to us the other night. When we come here for the session we usually send down to the Distribution office to get a few supplies. After the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) I thought I would examine these supplies to see where they were purchased. Among the dozen or so articles there is a pair of scissors, which I found were made in Newark, New Jersey.
An hon MEMBER: Where is that?


John Archibald Maharg: I think the House knows very well where New Jersey is. It is just across the river from the city of New York.
I found the lead pencils that carried a mark were of British make; I found the rubber eraser was made in the United States by the Goodyear company; the pyramid of desk pins were made in the state of Connecticut; the little thumb clips were also of British make; of the three pen points, two were made in the United States and one in Great Britain; the pen holder was also made in Great Britain; and, Sir, the one redeeming feature of the whole outfit that the maker had thought fit to mark was a bottle of mucilage, which was inscribed thus-"Boston, Montreal, New York, Chicago."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will my hon. friend
allow me a question?


John Archibald Maharg: Certainly.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A statement was made
to me that a large part of the implements used at the Brandon Experimental farm are

of American make. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to give the House some information in that regard?


John Archibald Maharg: Mr. Speaker, I would
not care to make a statement as to that. I do know that at the Experimental farms I have visited there are American implements. Of course there may be a reason for it, and we are prepared to be lenient. But we do object to hon. members of the Government and their supporters continually accusing us over here of buying American-made goods when we are absolutely helpless in securing them from Canadian manufacturers because of their refusal to sell to us. This great Government institution can compel Canadian firms to sell to them, and yet in the little equipment I have in my desk upstairs there is not a single article that can be guaranteed as being of Canadian manufacture.


Mr. ETHIER:: Not even the matches
distributed to the rooms.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not a smoker, consequently I have not had an opportunity of examining the matches, but I am prepared to take the hon. gentleman's word for it. I am going to extend my inquiries and see how far this system of buying nonCanadian goods extends in the Government's purchases; it may go much further.
Now, Sir, a matter which is apparently uppermost in the minds of some of the hon. members across the floor is the appointment of a commission to inquire into the grain trade. So far as I am concerned if anything can be accomplished by appointing a commission of inquiry I will be only too glad to support them in every way, and so far as our particular company is concerned, we will give them every assistance, as we have absolutely nothing to conceal.
But, Sir, I wonder why there is
5 p.m. all this solicitude on the Government benches at this time for an inquiry into the grain trade. Of course the reason is the discontinuance of the Wheat Board. But I make this assertion, that had there been one-half the enthusiasm on the other side of the House in favour of the reestablishment of the Wheat Board that there is now for an inquiry into the grain trade, the Wheat Board would have been continued without a doubt.
And, Sir, from the way this matter is being advanced it does not look very reassuring. If the statements that we hear as to the personnel of the commission have any foundation whatever, then I doubt very much whether the farmers of Western Canada will be at all satisfied. But if the
Government are going to appoint a commission, I want that commission clothed with the fullest authority to make an inquiry into every transaction in the grain trade, particularly the transactions in connection with the commandeering of our wheat, the sales of wheat by the Trade Commission overseas, and such like matters. We would like to know what happened. For instance, when that wheat was commandeered in Western Canada the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said it was absolutely necessary to get the wheat right away, that they could not wait to buy it on the market. I should like the proposed commission to inquire into and find out just why such a length of time was given to the people who were supposed to have this wheat in their elevators at Fort William to make delivery of it. I am informed, I think on the best authority, that months elapsed before this wheat was delivered. We have a very good idea why there was that interval, but we would like this commission to say why. We would also like to know why at a certain time this year, when the terminal elevators contained 17,000,000 bushels, one company handling about one-tenth of the grain had one-quarter of the grain in the terminals in its possession held for orders from the farmers. On this basis there should have been forty million bushels in the terminal elevators. Where was it? This is something for the proposed commission to inquire into. We would like to know if the Government officials permitted this wheat to be moved without the surrender of the documents calling for that wheat. Where did it go? Those are some of the things we would like to know. If there is any laxity there among the Government officials, and if any inquiry is needed, it is only because the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, which is the servant of this Government, is not living up to its duties. It has got every last power in its hands to inquire into everything mentioned by hon. members opposite, except the matter of the street price; everything else is entirely in the hands of that Commission, and at any time it can make the fullest inquiry it may see fit, and nothing in the world can prevent it taking action if it desires to do so.
Why do we need another commission? Are the Government going to appoint a commission to inquire into its own servant, the Canadian Grain Commission? Unless the proposed commission is appoint-

ed with full authority to inquire into everything connected with the grain trade, then, Sir, the Government might just as well not appoint it at all. I welcome the appointment of a commission that will go the length I have outlined. It might even make a little inquiry into the workings of the Canada Wheat Board. Not that I think the actions of the Board in any particular needs inquiring into, but I should like to know, for my own satisfaction, if any individuals attempted to get in between that Board and some of the starving European countries that needed our wheat.
The member for Kindersley (Mr. Myers) tried to leave the impression upon the House the other night that I was opposed to the Canada Wheat Board, and to Government control of our wheat crop. Well, Sir, everyone who has attended the sessions of this House or has read Hansard, must know that ever since the Government took control of the marketing of our wheat I have been a consistent supporter of continued Government control in some form or other. The hon. member for Kindersley and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders), who introduced this question, know very well that in the session of 1919 I, with them, had many interviews with the then Minister of Finance and the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, the member for Halifax, with a view to persuading them not to throw the market open again. They know very well that I was many times their chief spokesman in this respect. But, Sir, I want to go just a little further. At the meeting of the Canadian Council of Agriculture shortly before the market was thrown open, a committee was appointed. The member for Kindersley said he did not think that the directors of the two companies gave to the continuance of the Canada Wheat Board the support that they should. But who were the members of that committee? The general manager of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, the assistant manager of United Grain Growers, Limited, and myself. I was not in attendance at the committee meetings, but this committee drafted the proposal that was placed in the hands of the committee appointed by the Government at the conference held here; its report was furnished in detail and was acted on and carried out under the management of the Canada Wheat Board. It ill becomes any hon. member to try to show to the House that the directors of this Company or myself or anyone else connected with it

was not in favour of the continuance of the Wheat Board or of the control of the marketing of our wheat. However, the circumstances surrounding the whole thing go to show that the two companies themselves formulated a scheme and placed it in the hands of the committee on the very day that the conference was held here in Ottawa-a conference attended by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Who knows very well that the facts are as I have stated them.
There are several other things that this proposed commission, if it is appointed, might inquire into, but time will not permit my going into them. But there is another matter to which I wish to refer while the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) is seated opposite me. During the course of his remarks the other day, the hon. member said something to the effect that the apple growers of British Columbia were feeding their best apples to their cows. Well, Sir, it is most peculiar how things happen. A document, of the existence of which I was unaware, was placed in my hands to-day-evidently the people are watching us. This document comes from British Columbia, it is directed to the editor of the Regina Leader.


Walter Davy Cowan: And telegraphed to you yesterday.


John Archibald Maharg: 
Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Did not see
any tigers.


John Archibald Maharg: -did not see many
tigers in the city of Regina, especially in the form of Liberals; they do not go round in that guise. But I think if he -will make careful inquiry he will find one or two in the city of Regina; I have more than once heard them express themselves in that city.
In conclusion I wish to say just a word about the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. I have no hesitation in saying that the amendment does not suit me by any means-that is, the wording of the amendment, and it does not suit the people of Western Canada. Nevertheless its effect, if carried, would suit me and the people of Western Canada very nicely; consequently, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing left for me to do but to vote for the amendment.


Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I desire in the first place to tender my most sincere and kind congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister of this country. I do so as a member of this House and as a Manitoban. He and I came to this House as a result of the elections held in 1908. Ten of us came to the House together on that occasion. To-day I am on this side, and my right hon. friend is on the wrong side; one sleeps in an honoured grave in Prance; others are enjoying positions as a result of the power of this Government to appoint them to such positions; and the remainder are in that place where the dead still speak, the Canadian Senate. I have great regard for my friend the Prime Minister of Canada. My friends out West at different times have asked me what manner of man he was, and I said then what I say1 now- that I believed he was the best Tory in Canada. He thinks as a Tory; he acts like a Tory, and, if I may say so without being personal, he looks like a Tory-he is a Tory. I give him credit for ability, for industry, and for courage. I am sorry that as a Manitoban I am unable to follow
him; further than that I cannot go. He is a partisan, and so am I, but in our partisanship we differ. He has done all he could in the past, particularly in 1917, when he opened his campaign in the town of Morris, backed up by the premier of that province, to do what he could toward bringing about my defeat. He did not quite succeed. Perhaps he will be more successful next time, but in the meantime he may be kept very busy trying to save himself from defeat. For the reasons that I have given, I congratulate his party on having selected him. That he will live up to the traditions of the Conservative party, there is no doubt, as he is a reactionary; but whether he will be able, so to speak, to sway the multitude, we on this side are anxious to find out, more especially because the people of Canada are very anxious that this test should be made.
This debate has resolved itself into this. There has been some talk of the tariff; but in the meantime the tariff can very well stand; so can the freight rates, and from a western point of view and also from an eastern point of view, so can the question of the natural resources of this country. What we are dealing with especially, in following the amendment to the motion for an Address, is the question whether the people of Canada and the members of this House desire or do not desire a general election. A sub-amendment has also been moved, but, for my part, I cannot understand it; at least I could not understand it until I read the language of the hon. member who moved it. What did he say? Amongst other things he made this statement:
It may possibly not have escaped your attention, Sir, that since last session I have crossed the green carpet and now occupy a position on the side opposite the Government. I do not know that that fact is of any particular significance.
I agree with my hon. friend that it is of no particular significance, because his language Used further on endorses the statement that I make. He said further:
This does not mean that I differ from the Government now any more than I did in the past.
And further on:
I have no desire to see a change in government just at the present moment that would produce unnecessarily chaotic conditions.
The situation in regard to the subamendment, if I understand it aright, is this. It was moved by one who might be charged as acting in the capacity of sub

rosa agent of the Government. That hon. member crosses the floor of the House, but he says that he agrees with the Government. He does not want an election. He knew that the amendment of my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) was on record many days before he submitted his subamendment. As regards his statement that his crossing of the green carpet or the floor of this House might have no particular significance, I agree with him-there is none. He could have stayed where he had been for the three sessions which have passed since the general election of 1917, and still have moved his sub-amendment. I want to say this in passing:	If I had
so far forgotten myself as to have supported Union Government, and I was offered my constituency by acclamation guaranteed; if I had accepted and had gone to that side of the House, being elected as a member of the House at that time, and if I had remained there until the present moment, I ask you, Sir, to accept my word as a member of this House, I would have stayed with the ship; I would not desert it in its hour of dire distress. My hon. friends opposite need men such as my hon. friend who comes as a Liberal from the province from which I come. There are Liberals and Liberals. The true Liberals are on this side of the House; they are not on the other side.
The only argument that can be advanced in favour of the sub-amendment-and there is some weight in it-is the question whether it would be in the interest of the Canadian people to have a general election following the redistribution of seats which must necessarily take place after the census which, we hope, will be completed some time this coming summer. I was a member of this House before the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell). I was a member of this House in 1911 when the very gentlemen who now sit on the Treasury Benches sat, as I sit now, in the cold shades of Opposition, and they demanded an election on the reciprocity pact as put forward by the Government of that day. I challenge them, all or any of them, to produce from the records of Hansard anything to show that they asked that that election be not held in 1911 on the ground that the West, from which many of them came, would be unfairly dealt with. Did they ask that the election that took place in 1911, and that resulted in the defeat of the Laurier administration, the best this country ever had, be postponed

until the following year, until the then Government could take the census, redistribute the seats and give the people justice? No, they did not do that, and not doing it, if they are sincere now, they were most insincere in 1911. For this reason:	The census as taken in that year
gave to my province five additional members, to Saskatchewan, six additional members, to Alberta, five additional members, and if I remember rightly, to British Columbia, including the Yukon, five or six, I think six, additional members. Does any man think for a moment that by a redistribution now the West stands to gain that number of seats? Not at all. The other night this argument was advanced in this House- and I admit there is something to back it up. But will Manitoba or the other western provinces really gain? If we do, the number will be very small. There is in this country one province in which race suicide is not fashionable; that is Quebec, and I hope there are others. If the unit of representation in Quebec, which is represented in this House by sixty-five members, goes up from 30,000 odd to 40,000, how many seats will we gain in Manitoba? Perhaps one or two; and if the Government follows the line as indicated by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) the other evening, where will those seats go?-if you will allow me to put it in that way. They will go to the city of Winnipeg, which represents practically one-half of the population of that province. The redistribution will take away from the rural districts, not only in Western Canada, but in Ontario and Quebec, the rural members that they now have. The Government expects, by so doing, by using such political strategy, that they can appeal to the people in the large towns, cities and centres of industry in this country, and that the Government will be the gainer thereby. They do not want to be too sure of that. I am not a prophet, but I think I can say that in the next House there will be from ten to twelve Labour members, who will come from the large industrial centres, not from the agricultural districts.
So far as the election is concerned, whether we should have it now or later,
I do not propose, as the representative of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, to assume the responsibility of stating that there should not be an election. My reason is very simple. I have endeavoured, no matter how feebly, no matter how I may have failed-if I

have failed-in some instances, to represent the people that I know best and that best know me. I have lived in the county of Provencher since 1879. I passed through it before there was a railway in Western Canada, and I believe that I know the political situation in the province of Manitoba as well as any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. I do know this: I know the wishes and the opinions of those who live within the boundaries of the county which I represent. Not only do they ask for a general election now, but a year ago, before the last session commenced, they pressed for it just as strongly as we are doing now. There is only one thing for me to do as their representative, and that is to comply with their wishes or to be honourable enough to resign my seat in this House. I have not been asked to resign my seat; I believe these people still have faith in me. Believing that, and knowing their wishes, apart altogether from what my personal wishes or desires might be in the matter, I am going to support the amendment. I certainly, under no conditions whatsoever, will support the sub-amendment.
There are others besides the people of my county who have expressed themselves as desiring an election. There are the returned soldiers of this country. There are the farmers of this country, from Charlottetown to Victoria, who are represented in this House by an intelligent, and by no means, a small body of men. They constitute a recognized party in this House, and have their leader, who will take his chances with us and hon. gentlemen opposite whenever election day may come-and may it come soon. The farmers of this country are asking for an election. The business men of this country are asking for an election.
There is somebody else who is asking for an election, although perhaps not much attention will be paid to this statement by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have some idea of how to conduct an election. My methods may be crude, perhaps not as polished as others, but they are effective. Mr. Speaker, I get my information, I have got it in the past, and I get it now and in the future from the children in the schoolyards. When I am in doubt as to what a certain section is going to do, I make it my business to find out-I do it myself, or some one does it for me-what the children in that particular district may happen to say. If they are against me, I know I am up against it; if they are for me, I
know I am all right. I got many reports from the schoolyard in 1917 that were, I am sorry to say, unfavourable. I would not like to repeat on the floor of this House what even a clergyman said on a public platform in the county from which I come, where we run elections red-hot from the time they start until long after they are over. I know what the children said then in certain districts, and the poll pretty nearly went that way.
Now I pass from the school-children, the business men, the farmers, and the soldiers, and take another large class that has not been mentioned, that is, the enfranchised women of this country who did not vote in 1917. In the district in which I live, the majority of the women in the county of Provencher-and I make this statement believing it to be true-who voted for my opponent in 1917 are going to vote against this Government at the first opportunity. They have fully made up their minds to vote against this Government. Now miracles are not going to happen between now and election day, although somebody on the other side will doubtless try and work them. I say that the women of my county are against this Government, and they have good reasons for being so.
When I ask for an election now, some one may say, you are playing a selfish game, you are afraid of a redistribution of seats. I am not afraid of a redistribution of seats, nor am I playing a selfish game. It happens that my county is in the southeastern portion of the province, and from a military point of view, so to speak, I am protected on the east by the province of Ontario, on the south by the state of Minnesota, and on the west by the Red river. I have, therefore, only one line of trenches to watch, and so far as I am concerned they can either take away from pr add to my constituency-I care not which. Although I do not care, at the same time I may be defeated, for elections are uncertain, but take my word for this-that if I am, the fellow who gets in won't need a Turkish bath for the next six months anyway.
I say there should be an election for this reason if for no other, that in the year 1917 the Canadian people were in what might be termed an abnormal state of mind. Men said things and did things, and women said things and did things, that they would not do to-day. They have come down to terra firma, so to speak. There is unrest, but happily the unrest is



not gaining ground, at least, we hope not. 11 is unthinkable to me that men who have had long service as members of this House, for instance, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) or others associated with him much younger than him, can argue for a moment that the people of Canada are the same to-day as they were in 1917, or that they think in any one respect as they did in 1917, when men's passions and prejudices were inflamed, and the people generally were in an abnormal state of mind. I maintain that it is not fair to the people, no matter how the 1917 election was carried-and it was anything but fair to me, and we condemn that-now there is an opportunity for the Government to appeal to the people and get an expression of opinion on the questions of the day, that that opportunity should be denied. The right time to appeal is now, but the Government are hanging on to office, for what? They are hoping against hope, and what they are doing to-day other governments in this country have done before them. The Tupper Government of 1896 held on to the last minute of the day. It was bad business from a party point of view. This Government expect they will be stronger two years from now than they are to-day.
They will be just that much weaker. How can they be stronger? They cannot possibly hold a majority in this House, and they will be mighty fortunate if they do it this session. They are in great doubt themselves; they are in a blue funk at the present moment. We are not crowding the Government, if I may say so. The Opposition have been absolutely fair. They say to the Government:	Hurry on the necessary business before Parliament and before the country; take your Supply; be manly about it; get up and get out just as quickly as you can, and go to the country for the approval or disapproval of the people. They will have to go sooner or later, and the longer they delay the worse it will be for them. The other night I listened carefully, as I always do, to the eloquent Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). I may say that there is a personal political interest for me in the hon. gentleman. The first political meeting I ever attended in my life was held in December, 1886, in the county of Wellington. The main actor was the father of the present Minister of Militia, Mr. Donald Guthrie, and when it came to attacking the Tory party and making a speech that was incisive and telling, and one that

would be long remembered, well, he was one of the best I have ever heard. That was quite a while ago. I went to the meeting a Grit and when I came away I was a confirmed Grit; and I wish to say this- and I shall speak of the "acid test" a little later on-that to-day I prefer to be a Donald Guthrie Grit rather than a Hugh Guthrie Tory. Our hon. friend promised us the acid test. Well, I fancy pretty nearly every man on this side of the House has had the acid test applied to him at sometime or other. I got all the acid test I wanted in 1917. I stood up and survived it, and I am prepared to try it again. What is the acid test? Of course, we all know there are many acids, and I guess the acid test which they will apply, if they ever do apply any, will be something in the nature of boracic acid, which is a mild antiseptic that may be applied to wounds. My hon. friends opposite admit that wounds exist; there are wounds on this side of the House', they admit, they say, and they admit that there are wounds in certain sections of the country. And now they want to alleviate those wounds and are repentant. However, their apologies and their repentance will not be accepted by the majority of hon. members of this House, and certainly not by the majority of the people whom those members on this side represent. In the first place, hon. gentlemen opposite think they are very smart. They are going to put on the acid test, they say. In my estimation that is nothing but a bluff. They say: We will put forward the Liberal platform. Well, that will not faze me. They then threaten to bring forward the Farmers' platform. Well, you will not faze me there either, except in so far as one thing is concerned, and that is the Recall. I would not vote for the Recall if it were in the Liberal platform, and I am mighty sure I will not vote for it when it is in the Agrarian platform. I will come here elected to stick, or stay at home defeated; but no little committee back in the old county of Provencher is going to tell me some day, if they have some personal or other grievance, that the best thing I can do is to pack my trunk and go home. If they do I will tell them to mind their own business, for I am here to stay. Why, the thing is foolish; it is not Canadian; and there is not a man in the Agrarian party to-day who can stand up and defend the principle of Recall, eloquent as some of them are. No, Sir; I will not countenance any Recall, -Well, yes, there is one recall that I might

favour. When I cross the river I might find myself dissatisfied with my habitation, and if I were recalled it is likely I should come back. But I will have no Recall while I am a living man.
The acid test, Mr. Speaker, is being applied every minute, every hour, and every day as time goes on; while we are sitting in this House it is being applied. Who is applying the acid test, though? The manufacturers of Canada are applying it at least hourly to this Government. They say: Boys, come across before election, or we forget you. If you don't hurry you will find yourself in the wilderness of No Man's Land, as described by the high protectionist the other day, the member for St. Hyaeinthe (Mr. Gauthier). The Government know that they must satisfy the manufacturers or else land in No Man's Land. But whether they satisfy the manufacturers or not is of no consequence, for No Man's Land is exactly where they are going to find themselves, anyway. Some one else can apply the acid test just as well as those on the side of the Government. Their numbers may be greater; numerically they may be stronger; but that is not the whole thing. We may be a remnant, as we have been described. Well, we allow them to say so. But there was a remnant at the Battle of Waterloo, in the Old Guard; there was a remnant in the shape of the Light Brigade at Balaklava; and there were remnants among our own sons and brothers in the fields of Flanders during the war. But they all came back. A remnant is not so bad after all as something upon which to build a political party that will rule the country in which they belong. There have been many remnants, but we are a much stronger remnant in this country than they imagine. Hon. members opposite may say we are a remnant, but that will not hurt us. We know, as everybody else knows, that they are the remnant. They are a remnant that is afraid to hold an election. They are afraid to reorganize the Government. The Prime Minister is anxious to reorganize, and he shows his good sense in the desire to do so; but he is afraid to open seats for Cabinet Ministers, because he knows that there is not a constituency where a Cabinet Minister has a chance of being elected. There is not one from Charlottetown to Victoria.
We have been taunted by the statement that in certain provinces the representation on this side of the House is very small. On the face of it that statement is true. I
do not know how it was in Eastern Canada at the time of the general election; but I do know what went on in Western Canada, at least in some parts; and I want to say that the tyranny and the terrorism that prevailed in that section, backed up by every newspaper in the three western provinces so far as my knowledge goes, except two, were such, that it is no wonder that there are two men on this side from Western Canada. How so many came from the eastern provinces I do not understand. But we shall find out what went on, and we will prove that tyranny and terrorism did exist in this country in 1917. I believe it had the backing of the Government, although I would not say it had the backing of all its followers in this Chamber or out of it. I believe it was winked at by the Government, the idea being " Put this man out of business by any means, pretty much, that you desire." That day is over. They will not on the eve of the next election be able to promise the farmers of the country "You vote for us and your sons shall be exempt from Military Service." I say such a proceeding as that was a contemptible piece of business on the part of any man or any government. Although I represent a farming constituency I opposed that procedure. I maintained that the son of a farmer had as much right to go to war as anybody else when conscription was the law. Then what did the Government do? After making that promise to the farmers of Canada they immediately turned around and, as in the case of the signing of the Treaty of Limerick, they broke that pledge, before the ink was dry, to suit their own convenience.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude. I want to go on record, as a western man, as in favour of an election before re-distribution although by re-distribution I should gain. I am in favour of an election because the people whom I represent and the people are generally calling for it.
Not that all the electors are going to vote for the candidates of the Liberal party; their votes will be divided, there is no question about that. The representatives of three or four parties will be before the people and each will get some support. But I believe that the ballots of the great majority of electors will be cast in favour of those who have urged an immediate appeal to the people. For our part we welcome that appeal and we have no fear as to the outcome. We shall stand where we have always stood,

maintaining true Liberal principles. As a representative of the Liberal party I shall be found standing where I have stood in the past. Every man in my constituency knows my attitude and what my views are upon all questions that have been debated in this House. If my constituency sees fit to reject me, I shall have no complaint to make and neither should hon. gentleman across the way who to-day are in the position of usurpers. The best proof of that is the fact that they * are afraid to go back to the very people who sent them here but a few short years ago. I maintain that the people desire a general election and wish it to take place at the earliest possible moment. Such being the case the amendment of the leader of the Opposition will have my hearty support.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ROBERT H. HALBERT (North Ontario) : Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne and the amendments thereto at this late hour in the debate-and I know the Government is anxious to bring the debate to a close-I am sure, Sir, you will permit me to dispense with the time-honoured custom of throwing bouquets.
First, I want to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) for his warning to us in his speech. He seemed to be worried that we of this little group were being courted by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I also want to thank him for informing us that our wooer is insincere and is trying to deceive us. The information did not cause any serious heart throbbings among the members of our group. But for the peace of mind and comfort of the right hon. Prime Minister, I would hasten to remind him that all courtships do not end in marriage-as he no doubt is well aware after his somewhat fruitless wooing in the province of Quebec, although there are symptoms that he has secured one convert, as it is generally understood that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) is making go-goo eyes across the floor and longing for the flesh pots of a Cabinet position. But there are always jealousies between wooers, especially if they are both wooing for a purpose. The old
[Mr. Mblloy.f
saying tells us that "faint heart ne'er won fair lady," but I am sure, Sir, rto one would ever accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister of being faint-hearted. However, the wooing which he and his supporters are indulging in will never win for them the support of the intelligent, democratic-thinking people of Canada. Even the wooing of his tariff policy is losing its chloroforming effect.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, the attention of hon. members to the words of the right hon. Prime Minister as recorded on page 37 of Unrevised Hansard. He was speaking of the Colchester by-election and he said:
There was a candidate of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) who is represented to-day by the distinguished member for Red Deer. There was a candidate of that party in the county of Colchester and they had some rather questionable support-support from men who advocated very strange doctrines, very strange doctrines indeed, doctrines put into practice in only one country in the world that I know of. But that party had a candidate and its candidate was buried under a majority of some 1,500 votes.
I wonder what very strange doctrine the right hon. Prime Minister was referring to. Perhaps, Sir, if we would read some of the big headlines in the Colchester papers that were supporting the Government candidate we might get a little information on the point. You wil find in the Truro Citizen of Saturday, September 18, 1920-and it was in all the local Conservative papers-this heading in large letters-so large that you can probably read it, Sir, when I hold it up in my hand:
Will the Farmers and Working Men of Colchester Stand for Deviltries of Bolshevism?
I will not take up the time of the House in reading the whole advertisement, but I will quote one or two items, which I think will be sufficient for my purpose. This is all about the Bolshevik doctrine in Russia; I do not know what that had to do with the Colchester by-election, but it was given great prominence in this paper. I will quote some paragraphs:
Women are reduced to the level of chattels. Free love is the Bolshevik doctrine. No longer is woman regarded as a human creature to be loved and protected. The Bolshevick treat her as a beast, to be bought, sold, and raped as their cruel passions dictate.
Will the farmers and working men of Colchester stand for such deviltries ; and approve of being linked up in this campaign with canvassers who openly espouse the cause of Bolshevism?
Now, Mr. Speaker, in connection with that I am going to read a report of the

proceedings at the Conservative nomination convention in East Elgin. The heading of this news item is:
Foster Puts U. F. O. With Bolsheviki
Aylmer, Sept. 11.-At the Conservative Nomination Convention in Bast Elgin yesterday. Sir George Foster made a slashing attack on the U. F. O., ranking that organization with the Bolsheviki and the British miners who would oust responsible Government.
This is -what the right hon. gentleman said:
Be careful before you arise and from the top of the soap box or anywhere else propound that it shall be swept aside,-
He was speaking about the past history of Conservatism.
-smashed to pieces, that you shall put some class interest in its place-Soviet, Bolsheviki. miners' or farmers' party, I care not what it is-one is almost as bad as the other-
Thank goodness for that little word "almost." Now I want to read from the Mail and Empire. Speaking of the right hon. the Prime Minister it says:
At the Granby meeting Premier Meighen had something to say about Winnipeg Labour extremists uniting themselves to what appeared to them as the most formidable opposition to the Government. This was the C'rerar party, or the Western Grain Growers' Organization.
Premier Meighen's reference to this was well warranted and appropriate and does not, in the least, carry the inference that he deemed the Canadian farmer in general to be Bolshevist.
The Crerar group and the Canadian "farmers" are by no means the same.
I happen to be one of the Crerar group, and I am proud to have as my leader a man of the standing, integrity, ability and honesty of the hon. member for Marquette.
Now then, who was the farmers' candidate in Colchester? His name was Captain Dickson, a young farmer who owned a farm near Truro, and who when the war broke out turned his farm over to strangers to work, enlisted and went overseas, did his bit in France, was wounded, and came back when the war was over as a captain and I am told decorated with a Victoria pr a Military Cross-a very creditable candidate I am sure you will admit, Mr. Speaker, a candidate you would not think of accusing of being a Bolshevik or linked up with humbugs, fakirs, or nation-wreckers. Did those who are making those insinuations do as much for their country as Captain Dickson did in its hour of peril?
I would like to draw your attention, Sir, to another article in the same paper headed in big type:
A Carnival of Corruption Charged. How the U. F. O. Did It in Ontario. Some Light on Farmers' election in Dufferin County, Ontario.
The truth of the matter is that there were no corrupt practices, and none were proven, and the judges who sat on the election protest ordered the party who filed the charges -and who was of course backed up by the Conservative Government of the province

to pay all costs in connection with the case, as they stated that everything in connection with the election was honest and above board. But, Sir, those insinuations and charges had done their work in Colchester in assisting to defeat Captain Dickson and in electing the hon. member for Colchester, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy). We in this group, and Captain Dickson as well, would sooner be defeated than elected and hold office by such highhanded misrepresentation and stooping to such low degrading deceptions and questionable methods. When men or governments will stoop to such practices to be elected, what can you expect of them, Sir, when they get in office? Is there not a grave danger of their continuing those same methods? There is only one safe course to pursue for all who want to maintain self-respect and public confidence, and that is to play fair in everything. The structure of society and government is built upon the basis of respect and confidence, and when that fails , society or government becomes but a rope of sand; and any government holding office that has not that confidence weakens the respect that people have in government and in public men.
I will have to vote for the amendment, Mr. Speaker, because I believe this Government has not that confidence, and that the people are anxious for ,an election at as early a date as possible. In support of that, I will only refer you to the by-elections in the province of Ontario. The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) claimed to speak for that province, but, Mr. Speaker, Ontario has spoken with no uncertain voice. We have had five by-elections in Ontario-* Tory Ontario; did the Government win any of them? You, Sir, well know that a Government which has the confidence of the people seldom loses a by-election, but this Government has lost them all. In Glengarry, in Temiskaming, in East Elgin, in North Ontario, the candidates who ran on the Farmers' platform were elected and now sit in this group; in West Peterborough a Liberal candidate was elected. I would not then, he doing my duty to my riding, to my province or to this Dominion were I to vote to support a government which, as the by-elections go to prove beyond the shadow

of a doubt, has not the confidence of the people.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said during the course of his speech on the Address that it would be better to hold on to the seat he had, than to take chances in an election. This sentiment was endorsed also by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that they were speaking not only their own opinion but the opinion of a good many of the men who sit around them.
We have heard a good deal about redistribution; it is one of the main arguments that is being put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite as an excuse for their hanging on to office. It is contended that it is not fair to disfranchise the West, which should have increased representation. But, Sir, not only the West but a large part of the Dominion is not represented now-or perhaps I should say, is misrepresented- and the Government seems determined to disfranchise these people until they get good and ready and get the constituencies changed so that they will be able at least to re-elect a corporal's guard from those on the opposite side of the House.
We in this little group feel that great issues are at stake to-day, and that the next few years will determine the future of Canada. All who have the interests of Canada at heart feel that we have ahead of us many years of steady, patient, earnest and perhaps sometimes heartrending toil, but along this way lies the only road to satisfaction and success. It will test our metal, the sincerity of our purpose and the purity and strength of our ideals. It will find the weak spot in our moral makeup-but at the end lies the goal, the making of Canada and the well-being of her people. Have we, Mr. Speaker, the courage to face the future with the inspiration of a great purpose and find a joy and an honour in the doing of it, or are we going to let past and present conditions continue to break our hearts, mar our morals, and destroy the birthright which is the inheritance of all those who were born in and love this great Canada?
We hear great criticism of the farmer's organization and the farmers' group. The hon. member for Brantford took some measure of comfort, I have no doubt, from his criticism of the Ontario Government. But the farmers have never shown that they were at all dangerous, except in the minds, perhaps, of members on the opposite side. Why are the supporters of

the farmers' platform branded as Bolshevik? Because they refused to be influenced by the backwoods ranting of politicians who trade on partyism and bigotry and we say that henceforth the standard of Canadian citizenship is to be measured by a man's worth and not according to the length of his ancestry of party heelers. The farmers are bound to Canada with an intensity of attachment. They are rooted in its soil; as native sons they love Canada with the passionate love of children for their mothers. Their fathers and forefathers cleared the land and railed the highways. Prance is finding her hope today not in her cities and large industrial centres, but in the industry and thrift of her rural people. It was this same industry and thrift that paid France's indemnity to Germany after 1870. It is the peasants of Belgium who are re-creating that country and making it again the garden of Europe. It was the farmers of Denmark who in 1880 created the organization out of which has grown, perhaps, the biggest national business success of modern times. Only by the same grit, determination and steady, plucky labour can Canada ever hope to become great or can her place among the nations be assured. If Canada in the years to come is to make any lasting contribution to civilization, it will be because her people have breathed the spirit of true democracy and feel the responsibility of the great task which they have inherited. With a task so gTeat before us, Canada can well afford to take stock of her resources and of the spirit of her people. It is a significant fact that the people of Canada to-day are learning their own power, are doing their own thinking, and are prepared to accept and discharge the responsibilities that all this implies. Were it otherwise, Canada would be unworthy of her inheritance, of the sacrifice of her bravest sons, and of the great future which awaits her.
We have, Mr. Speaker, another very important task; we must cement our common citizenship. Our flag is made up of different colours of silk or wool, but taken together they make up the Union Jack of which we are all so proud. This magnificent building in which we meet is built of stone, brick and marble, but what unites these elements in a building which will endure forever? Cement, is it not? We have in Canada people of different races and creeds. What is needed to unite them? The gospel of Canadian citizenship. Between these different races and creeds there must be agreement as to the national ideals,

and this agreement will be brought about not by force but by education and goodwill and friendly co-operation. We should aim to make Canada and Canadianism so dear to the hearts of all who live within our borders that they will seek this citizenship of their own accord, and cherish it as a privilege and a source of pride. Build up Canada and true Canadian citizenship, and the rest will take care of itself. This is the work of a united people, and must find its inspiration in a great national need. If we fail in this task, we shall suffer loss: if we succeed, our children will rise up and call us blessed and civilization will learn to pay tribute to the greatness of the spirit of the Canadian people.
There has been considerable discussion, Mr. Speaker, about who should be on the Government benches; several hon. members intimate that the leader of the Opposition turns a longing eye in that direction, and that he is angling for the Prime Ministership. But, Sir, that is not the issue to-day; that is not what is being discussed outside this House. The issue is not the right hon. Prime Minister and the National Liberal and Conservative Party; not the leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party; not the hon. member for Marquette and the National Progressive Party; the issue to-day is whether Canada is going to have its destinies controlled by a greedy plutocracy or whether we are going to be allowed to establish a real economic democracy without which political democracy is farcical. There must be a change, Mr. Speaker, or our civilization will be hopelessly brutalized. The horn and hoof of the protected interests have been long enough upon the doorstep of Canadian homes and Canada's House of Parliament. The fight for freedom from this vulgar and oppressive domination has only begun, but, Sir, it will never let up until the common people, the wealth-producing people of Canada, are liberated from the thraldom of the financial barons who own this country financially and control it politically, and until we have a condition of equal rights to all and special privileges to none. No matter how fertile the soil of a country may be; no matter how frugal and industrious its people, it will remain poor and backward and its people will be lacking in the highest comforts of life if its trade laws and its fiscal policies are unsound.
Protection in any country creates a class, bound together by self-interest alone, armed at all points and ready for action against any one or any party that would dare to curtail its privileges. Such a class
is without private or public honour and actuated solely by greed for financial gain. Protection has been called slavery of the same kind as American slavery, but not in the same degree; but the day is not far distant when we shall see embodied in active legislation the ideals and aspirations of the plain folk of Canada. Though the ship may swing with the tide, while the anchor holds firm to democracy, we are safe.
Sixty thousand of the brightest, best and bravest of Canada's sons lie buried on the fields of France and Flanders, for what? Because they were willing to die for the economic and political emancipation of the world.


Mr. SMITH:: Because you would not help them.
Some hon.' MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. HALBERT:: That is too small to reply to. We all know that since Confederation, Canada and the Canadian people have been owned and controlled, economically and politically, by a few manufacturers, a few railwaymen and a few big lumbermen. But, Sir, the war has changed things and the army of emancipation is on the march to-day. When the representatives of that army arrive at Ottawa, they will say to all and sundry, no matter by what name they are called: "We have come here to upset the tables of the money changers; we have come here to unseat autocracy and to establish democracy; we have come here to enter into the heritage that our sons and brothers have died to purchase; we have come here to rescue our beloved Canada from economic and political bondage; we have come here to place Canada where she belongs, in the forefront of the battle of a free and democratic people."
Since I have come into this House, I have listened attentively to every hon. member who has spoken, and that is more than, members on the other side can say.


Mr. SAMUEL WILLIAM JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House on the question now before the Chamber, I feel very much like the young Swede who, on a moonlight evening in a public park, was induced to propose to a lady to whom he had been paying attention for some considerable time. After he had been accepted, a sudden silence fell upon the young man. This silence after a while became almost unbearable to the young lady, and she said:

"Why don't you say something? Why don't you talk?" And he replied: "I think there has been too much blank talking done already." I have listened in this House for nearly three weeks to addresses of various kinds, and I feel that it is almost impossible to add anything to what has already been said. Some speeches, in my humble opinion, were wise; others were otherwise.
It has been the custom with every hon. gentleman who has risen from his seat to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address. I gladly do so, although I am free to confess that I have almost forgotten what they said; but in that respect, I do not think I differ from any other hon. gentleman who congratulated them, and the only difference is that, perhaps, I am a little franker than they are. One thing, however, I am assured of, and that is that the remarks of those two gentlemen will not bring them within the purview of the Seditious Offenders' Act which was put on the statute books by this Parliament a year or two ago. Their speeches were safe, sane, if somewhat innocuous, and I extend to them my full meed of praise. My only regret is that the Government did not see fit to observe the time-honoured custom of seeing that one of the two addresses was delivered in the French language, a custom which, with, perhaps, one or two exceptions, we have observed in this Parliament for fifty years. I suppose the Government felt that by having the Atlantic speak to the Pacific, they were observing the dual rule. We have one gentleman from Prince Edward Island answered by a gentleman from the Pacific ocean. Deep called unto deep. We have one gentleman from British Columbia, representing the British race, and from Prince Edward Island we have what I suppose should be called Cape Race.
When my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) closed his admirable address in this House, he referred to the Government as those who occupy high seats in the synagogue and who make broad their phylacteries, and he warned us that for that reason we ought to have nothing to do with them. For my part, being an observing Jew, if I thought they did occupy high places in the synagogue and make broad their phylacteries, I would at once cross to their side; but I feel that my hon. leader was entirely too kind to them; he probably wished to refer to them as the ordinary, common, garden variety of hypocrites. Perhaps it was the beautiful 
picture he painted of the loaves and fishes and the full platters and so on which, has induced my co-religionist, John the Baptist, to cross the floor. You have heard, Sir, the old saying: "Every country has the Jew it deserves," and perhaps I can extend that by saying that "Every party has the Jew it deserves."
I wish to congratulate [DOT] the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) on the high and important office to which he has been called. He was not elected in open convention, as we coifsider ought to be the custom in a democratic country; he was elected by caucus. But I venture to say that, had a convention been called, the party to which he belongs could not have secured a more able and astute leader than he has turned out to be. You will remember, Sir, in Paradise Lost, when the fallen angels were looking around for a leader, they chose Satan. Why did they choose Satan? They did so because they said that Satan was the ablest one in their party, and he was raised to that "bad eminence" of leadership by those fallen angels. I remember, after reading in the newspapers one morning that my right hon. friend had been selected from among all others at the party caucus, I sat down and wrote him a letter of congratulation. I told him that while I and many others had doubts whether he would make a good Prime Minister, we were all assured of one thing, and that was that he would make an admirable leader of the Opposition a position to which I hope he will soon be called.
When the Peterborough election was on, we had reason to believe that the Prime Minister was going to follow precedent and that if the election in Peterborough went against him, he would dissolve Parliament. In an extract from La Patrie about that time, reproduced in the Montreal Gazette, the Prime Minsiter is reported to have made this statement:
Mr. Meighen has already said that if the people wanted a general election, they had only to manifest their desire at a by-election. He considered no clear indication was to be obtained from previous by-elections. It will be interesting, therefore, to hear what significance he proposes to attach to the verdict of Peterborough.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister actually made that statement; but taking into consideration this extract from La Patrie, which is not by any means unfriendly to the Government, this extract being reproduced in the Montreal Gazette, I take it that that statement is correct.

What has happened which has caused the Prime Minister and his Government to change their view? Why is it that a change has come over the spirit of their dream? On the morning following the election in West Peterborough, the Montreal Gazette, the Ottawa Journal, and other newspapers favourable to the Government, declared that now was the time for an election. Everybody was prepared for the funeral, except the corpse. Surely, Mr. Speaker, no better evidence could be found in the whole world than the election in Peterborough. The issue, and the only issue, in that election was:	Have the Government a mandate from the people? Are they ursurping power? Ten thousand voters in Peterborough, out of about thirteen thousand, declared that the Government had no mandate, but notwithstanding the voice of the people, the Prime Minister is still hanging on to office. It is apparent to every person that the Government is disintegrating. Mortification has set in. In the elections of 1917 they had, I believe, one of the largest majorities ever given to a party in the Dominion of Canada. To-day what have they? They are counting heads. They are robbing hospitals. They are dragging from sick beds poor hon. members who are not permitted to rest in peace-


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Shame.


Samuel William Jacobs: -and for- what? To
maintain this Government in power. It is a shame, and I am glad the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) admits it. He represents a division which adjoins mine, and that is probably why we agree sometimes on some things.
I do not need to traverse all the questions that have been debated in this House. The main question as to whether this Government was formed for a specific purpose or not has been so well debated on this side of the House that the argument, I submit, is irrefutable, and I challenge any member on the other side of the House to answer the charge made which has been backed up by the most telling precedents ever put before this House, by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) in his admirable address yesterday. A strange silence has fallen on the Government for the past two days. At the beginning of this debate we were tilting against men whom we thought worthy of our steel. Later, they were not so worthy, and finally, we found that we were obliged to tilt against mere windmills, until now, Mr. Speaker, we are tilting against
nothing. There is no answer; we are whipping a dead horse, and I submit that all that it is necessary for us to do is to take our seats and see that the vote is forthwith cast. The gentlemen on the other side of the House in their mentality are very much like Sir George Etienne Cartier.
It is said that when opposition developed in the House to any of his measures his cry was "Call in the members." He would dispose of the question at once by a vote-no discussion, no argument,-just call in the members. I see that Tory tradition still prevails in this House. The right hon. the Prime Minister has a party which is called the National Liberal Conservative party.


Mr. LALOR:: You left out the word
" and ".


Samuel William Jacobs: The National Liberal and Conservative party. Let us take the national part of the name first. The National party is a party that deserves well at the hands of the Government. Had it not been for the National party in 1911 the Government would not be in their places to-day. It was Mr. Bourassa who acted as Cyrano de Bergerac to the then leader of the Opposition, and got him into power. He reached My Lady's Chamber with the assistance of Mr. Bourassa, and no person else, and we know how Mr. Bourassa was treated a few weeks afterwards. Still, it appears the Government have some kindly feelings for their old friend, and when they came to give the child a name, he was given for a first name "National," in remembrance of the kindly act of Mr. Bourassa and his National followers. Then we have the name "Liberal." What does that mean? Is it worth calling a party by a name simply to salve the conscience of three hon. gentlemen who have left this side of the House and crossed to the other? I do not think it is. It is the custom in our synagogue, Mr. Speaker, to call our children after the names of our dead relatives. These three Liberals certainly are dead ones, and my friends on the other side have evidently adopted some of our Jewish customs. I am glad they are doing so, and I hope before I am here very much longer they will follow others. Then comes the word "Conservative." I suppose they are entitled to call themselves the Conservative party, because after all these Nationalists and these Liberals are really Conservatives. They have been swallowed by the Conservative party. They have "returned from their ride with the lady inside and the smile

on the face of the tiger." A motto which I would suggest to the Government would be the one Mr. Vanderbilt used on one occasion when he was asked "What will the public say?" He replied "The public be hanged." That is a motto which I suggest should be adopted by this new Government. A famous French general in the Crimean War, I think it was Marshal MacMahon, in a communique to headquarters stated that he had taken the Malakoff redoubt. He explained the situation in a very few words, "J'y suis, j'y reste"-"I am here, and I intend to remain here." That is good tactics in war, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose, this being a war government, they feel they can righteously adopt tactics of that kind and say "J'y suis, j'y reste." '
Evil communications corrupt good manners. The Conservative party is not the Conservative party it was before it became contaminated by these elements. I would ask my hon. friends on the other side if they have Mr. R. B. Bennett's opinion of them. He is a gentleman who practically used to sleep with the former Prime Minister, who could not go anywhere without Mr. Bennett. Whether he was afraid to leave him in Canada when he went abroad I do not know, but Mr. Bennett used to travel with the Prime Minister when he went abroad, and he was the recipient of many favours from the Conservative party. It would be interesting to know what Mr. Bennett's views on this party are, and also those of the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, the former Minister of Militia, (Sir Sam Hughes). It would also be interesting to know what the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) thinks of this once great party. A story is told of a student of zoology who was asked by the professor of his college to define what a lobster was. He said: "A lobster is a fish, is red in colour, and walks backwards." The professor said: "That definition is perfect except for the fact that the lobster is not a fish, is not red in colour, and does not walk backwards"; and it might be said adopting the student's definition with a slight variation that this Government is the greatest lobster we have ever had in this country.
I do not know why it is that the Government was not satisfied to revert to the old name of "Conservative" when the so-called "Union" label was discarded from the title of the present party. The Conservative party stood for a great deal in this country. It was the party of Sir John A Macdonald, and my hon. friend the 
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was instrumental in forming that party into an important fighting force in Canada. Why is it that they have cast aside that name and now seek something which they think is just as good? The new name indicates the hybrid origin of this Government; but like everything hybrid, I am afraid it is not destined to come to much. A definition was giver recently of this National Liberal Conservative party, in which it was likened to tht mule, in that it had no pride of ancestrj and no hope of posterity. Our chief objec tion to this Government is that it was formed during war time and consequently is saturated with the war spirit; and you never can do anything in the matter of re-establishment on a civil basis unless you get rid of the war spirit and everything it implies. And I propose to show in the few minutes at my disposal that this war spirit still permeates and impregnates in its entirety every Department of the Government. I have only to refer to the Department of Marine, which is presided over by my good friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Ballan-tyne). In passing, I may say that I am glad to think that a member from the city of Montreal should be appointed to this high and important office. This department started building ships during the war. It may have been necessary that we should have ships- during the war. No one could tell how long the war would last; it was practically an impossibility to predict its duration; and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Naval Service cast about him to see that we should have as many ships as possible for the purposes of the war. But the hon. gentleman has evidently forgotten that the war is over, because he is still going on with the building of ships, or at any rate is completing ships which were started after the war. Is not that an indication of the war spirit which permeates the Department of Marine? We want these ships no more than a man wants a third leg; they are useless to us. Shipping in every part of the world is at a standstill. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a couple of telegraphic despatches which appeared in the newspapers only a few weeks ago touching the situation with regard to ships throughout the world. I shall quote from the Montreal Star, a newspaper by no means hostile to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Rotterdam, January 7.-Forty-nine ocean steamers, mostly Dutch, are laid up at the present time at Rotterdam because of lack of

cargoes and the low freight rates according to Burgomaster Zimmerman. He also announces that while more ships entered Rotterdam last year than previously the actual tonnage was only 58 per cent of that of 1913.
Side by side, in a parallel column, I find the following:
Vancouver, January 7.

The keels of two new Government steamers, the Canadian "Transporter" and the Canadian "Trader" were laid at the Coughlan shipyards here yesterday. Seven hundred men are engaged in the yards.
Then on January 7th, the same day-
I am still quoting from the Montreal Star 

there appears this item:
Prince Rupert, January 7.-A meeting of the creditors of the Prince Rupert Dry Docks and Shipbuilding Company was held hero yesterday. W. E. Hodges, who presided, read a statement showing approximate total liabilities exceeding $800,000.
A few weeks earlier in the newspapers, the following appeared:
The Canadian Engineer reports that the Mexican Government has placed orders with the Prince Rupert Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company for thirty-seven vessels. A form of the proposed contract is now before the Marine Department, Ottawa, for approval.
How is it possible, if this contract for 37 vessels was placed with the Prince Rupert Dry Dock Company in November, that in January this company should have gone into liquidation? That is something which I cannot understand, unless it he that when the creditors of the Prince Rupert Company found that Mexico was seeking to buy 37 vessels from Canada they felt it was high time to close up the works. This only goes to show-and I could cite numerous instances-the moribund condition of shipping and shipbuilding throughout the whole world. And yet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has committed us to nearly $100,000,000 in the matter of the building of ships. We are, and have been for some time, groaning under the railway incumhus, hut the Minister of Marine and Fisheries evidently is not aware of the fact, because, notwithstanding that burden, he is still putting on our shoulders a policy that will mean to this country, before the eyes of the Government are opened to the situation, a loss not of $100,000,000 but perhaps of $200,000,000. How long are the Canadian people going to stand this? Are we not quite right in demanding an immediate election in order to test the feeling of the people as to whether they want shipbuilding started, when the country is almost on the verge of bankruptcy? Now, that is an indication of
the war spirit which, as I have said, still permeates the members of the Government.
May I take another Department, about which I know something, the Immigration Department? We have on the statute books and in Orders in Council certain laws respecting immigration, which are the most extraordinary and grotesque that it is possible to imagine sane people would enact. I make this statement advisedly, and shall show you what some of these laws are. For instance, we have an Order in Council respecting immigration which declares that any immigrant who wishes to come to this country must come direct from the country of his birth, be it the Balkans, be it Ukrainia, be it Poland, or be it any of the countries of Central Europe. If he comes direct from the country of his birth he will be permitted, under certain conditions, to land in this country; but should that man and his family have left the country of his birth and gone to England and have lived in England say for fifteen or twenty years, brought up his family there under English customs, and taught them English ideals and the language of the country-if that man attempted to land in Canada with his wife and family he would be debarred from entering the Dominion. Now, I am not saying this as a jest, Mr. Speaker. It is not something from a libretto of Gilbert and Sullivan, or something from Alice in Wonderland-it is an Order in Council of the Department of Immigration. Now here is another thing:
No person will be permitted to land in this country unless he is possessed of $250 in cash on his person at the time he presents himself for examination before the Immigration officer at the port of entry.
He must have in his possession $250 so that he can keep himself alive until he obtains works. But if the man is coming to relatives who are worth say half a million of dollars and who are prepared to give bonds to the Government that he will not become a public charge it is not sufficient. This man may use his $250 for living expenses and he may then become a public charge but that is of no consequence to the Government. If he lands with $250 that is sufficient; but no matter what bonds another person is prepared to give, or what bonds his relatives are prepared to give he is not permitted to land without $250.
Now there is another rule. In times when there is little work people are permitted to


Rodolphe Lemieux: Natural resources.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes. Why is that department not represented by a minister in this House? I am aware that the Government is in such a position that they dare not open any constituencies, and that is one of the reasons, we say, why we ought to have a general election and put affairs on a proper basis. We cannot accommodate this Government very much longer. We are willing to do what we can, but in the name of public decency we owe it to ourselves to see that the Government is dug out of its hole and driven to the country.
The Department of Militia is another department that indicates the permeation of the war spirit. We have a new Minister of Militia who is not a military man, he is not a Son of Mars. The only "fighting" he ever does is to make a "fighting" speech in the House, and he follows that rule of fighting in which discretion is the better part of valour, because he finds it is well to fight and run away so he may live to fight another day. This gentleman, in order to show that he was in sympathy with the war spirit, promptly jumped our expenditure in the Militia Department from something like $8,000,000, which I think it was before the war, to about $20,000,000, if we include the Northwest Mounted Police.
Here we have the League of Nations, and we have my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the former President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) going across the Atlantic ocean to settle all the ills to which flesh is heir-to bring peace into the world and not a sword. But on the other hand, we have the Minister of Militia and Defence, who is left at home, jumping the estimates from $8,000,000 to $20,000,000. I understand that our share of the cost of the League of Nations is about $200,000 a year. Does my right hon. friend not think that it would be better for us'to spend $20,000,000 towards the upkeep

of the League of Nations and $100,000 or $200,000 for our militia? Perhaps it would do more good.
I could go on and show how in every branch of the Government service we have the war spirit. The Naturalization Act, the Franchise Act, and other Acts which we passed last session had the war spirit breathed into them.
But I find that I have already taken up more time than I intended, and I shall resume my seat in a moment or two. Before doing so, however, I should like to say a word or two about the threatened Royal Commission to investigate the grain trade. I know nothing about the grain trade, I cannot talk in terms of wheat, and it goes against the grain for me to talk about it. But I was rather astonished to find that this important question should have been relegated to the gentlemen who occupy seats in the rear of this chamber. It came on rather suddenly. One day the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) threatened the Agrarian group with a Royal Commission of inquiry into the grain trade; next day another hon. gentleman took it up; next day still another hon. gentleman took it up; and finally all along the line we found a wonderful similarity in the addresses of these hon. gentlemen, until one could not but conclude that some person higher in authority than these gentlemen was giving them their cue; they spoke in such parrot tones that one might very well come to the conclusion that they were under the tuition of the professor of par-rotology in the Government; but of course that is one of the mysteries into which we are not permitted to delve. I am inclined to think that if a Royal Commission is to be appointed the gentlemen from the Agrarian group will be able to give a pretty good account of themselves. They look to me as rather decent, honourable and respectable citizens.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Coax them along.


Samuel William Jacobs: If they are not, so much the worse for them. It is a matter with which we on this side of the House are not concerned. But, as I said before, I believe they are well able to take care of themselves.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the talk of conciliation towards the province of Quebec? I come from that province. I represent a division which is largely French Canadian, and I think I understand the mentality of those people. They were sufficiently tolerant and wide in their

views to elect me to be their representative in this House-an example which I have yet to see from other parts of the Dominion. From time to time we read in the government press articles of a conciliatory character with regard to Quebec. We are told that the people of that province are safe, that they are sane, that they are progressive, that they are conservative and that they have all the virtues which it is possible for a race to possess. A great change has come over this people since 1917, evidently. But, Sir, do you think that the province of Quebec is going to be won by mere lip service such as is indulged in by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House? When you find positions to which French-speaking Canadians are rightly entitled taken from them and given to English-speaking Canadians, when you find them ignored in the filling of public appointments, do you think those people have for the rest of the country, and particularly for the Government, those "Christian" feelings which you would like to inculcate in their breasts? Let me take, for instance, the appointment recently to the International Joint Commission. One of the three positions occupied by representatives of this country had been held by a French Canadian ever since the Commission was established, the first gentleman appointed being Mr. Aime Geoffrion, of Montreal, the second hon. Thomas Chase-Casgrain, and the third hon. P. B. Mi-gnault, who is now a judge of the Supreme Court. The vacancy caused by his accepting a judgeship was filled by this Government appointing Sir William Hearst. A poor Tory politician out of a job-a discredited Tory politician with nothing to do, is appointed as French representative on the International Joint Commission. That is a sample of the attempt at the conciliation of Quebec. Is it at all surprising, Mr. Speaker, when hon. gentlemen on the other side invite Quebec to give them support, that, as my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) said, the poor fish from St. Hyacinthe is the only one that they landed.
Then, let me take the case of the appointment to the Senate last year of a gentleman to take the place of the late Senator Landry. Senator Landry typified a certain element who are very strong in their views with regard to certain questions-the Catholic school question particularly. He was a gentleman of very high intellect and of considerable ability. He died in due course of time and was

gathered unto his fathers, and the French Canadian who took his place was a gentleman named Lome C. Webster. Then, there was the case of the ill-fated Board of Commerce, which was born with the seeds of death in it. No French Canadian was appointed to that Board; perhaps that is why it died so early, because French Canadians are long-lived people. That ought to be a lesson to my hon. friends on the other side; it should cause them to see to it that they appoint to positions of that sort men who are noted for vitality. The failure of the Government to appoint a French Canadian on the Board of Commerce was keenly resented throughout the whole province of Quebec. I could go on naming other instances in which traditions have been broken down by this Government-traditions which had been consecrated by fifty years of custom. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite ask us of the province of Quebec to come in, and lend them a hand when they are in dire straits. It is expecting too much of flesh and blood to ask Quebec to do anything for this Government under the circumstances, and so long as such treatment is meted out to them, just so long shall we have on this side a solid block from that province opposing the Government tooth and nail, until we have them on the run-which I think, Mr. Speaker, we have succeeded in doing at last. The Government, Mr. Speaker, is tottering to its fall. No power on earth can now save it; it is moribund. It is said that of the dead we should say nothing but good. All I can say of the Government is, in the words of Shakespeare:
Vex not his ghost; O, let him pass; he hates him,
That would upon the rack of this tough world Stietch him out longer.


Mr. H. O. WRIGHT (Battleford) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising at so late a period to make a few observations in this debate, I am sure it will not b6 possible for me to offer much that is new. However, I feel it my duty to occupy a few moments of the time of the House before the vote is finally recorded.
Before proceeding, let me offer my congratulations to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who has since last session been elevated to the high position of Prime Minister of this country. I do not hesitate for one moment in saying that as a new member I have admired the great efforts he put forth during the period of the war in his desire to serve our country
and the Empire. Since assuming the high office he now holds, his courage and resourcefulness have been greatly admired, even by those who do not agree with his policies or with the pretensions of the multi-named party which he leads.
Lest I should be accused of violating a time-honoured custom in this debate, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to extend to the mover (Mr. Mclssac) and the seconder (Mr. MacKelvie) of this motion, my felicitations. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not extend my congratulations also in another direction. Since this Parliament last met an incident has occured which is of far reaching national importance:	I refer to the fact that the hon.
member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has been selected by a very large portion of the people of this country as leader of the new National Progressive Party. In my opinion their selection of a leader has been a wise one, for in the member for Marquette we have a man of very wide business experience in Canada, a man who has risen from the ranks of the people, who is thoroughly conversant with their problems through knowledge gained from personal experience, and, most important of all, a man whose integrity and honesty of purpose is beyond reproach.
Lest I should forget it later, I wish to express my appreciation of the kind references made in regard to this group by the hon. gentleman who preceded me. (Mr. Jacobs) :	I trust that we shall not disappoint him. I merely wish to thank him for his kind words.
I shall not attempt to follow along the by-roads into which this debate has led us; I will endeavour to confine myself for the most part to one or two items of national importance. The country has been very considerably agitated by the introduction into the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of a measure which, in its effect, aims at the vitals of one of our chief industries. I refer to the Fordney Bill. Too much importance cannot be placed upon the effect that that legislation may have upon the agricultural industry of this country should it become law. I am informed that three quarters of the wheat exported from this country last fall found its way into the United States. Had a measure been in force such as is contemplated in the Fordney Bill it is my opinion that the result would have created a financial panic in a great portion of this country. The effect upon the grain-growing industry would have been disastrous; it would have shut out prac-

tically the only market we had for our grain. The surprising feature of this situation, Sir, is that during the time this most important legislation was before Congress, Canada, which, we are told, has assumed the status of nationhood-and I sincerely hope it is true-was without official representation in that country. Not only that, but even the good offices of the British Ambassador were not available owing to his absence overseas. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has informed the House that it has been decided to appoint an ambassador at Washington, but the delay is in the selection of a man suitable for the position. It did not seem very difficult to secure suitable men to represent us at the Peace Congress and at the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva; surely it dannot be so difficult to find a suitable representative to go to Washington to protect our interests there.
I am quite sure it is not generally known in the country to the south of us that Canada is her second best customer. But that condition is easily understood when we realize that our Canadian interests have not been properly represented in the United States and that therefore the importance of the Canadian market is not appreciated.
I would urge upon the Government the necessity of the immediate appointment of a capable ambassador at Washington. Further delay may mean the placing of agriculture and of the myriad industries that depend upon it in a very precarious condition, which otherwise could in all probability be avoided. We should also have trade representatives in all the large cities of the United States.
The Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), in his speech the other day, told us that there were two ways in correcting the adverse trade balance: one was to buy less from the United States and the other was to sell more. The latter process appeals to me very strongly. Surely such trade representatives would be of inestimable value in procuring outlets for manufactured goods of Canadian origin. It must be a source of great inspiration to Canadian manufacturers to look to the south and see the great market that exists there for their goods. There is nothing wrong with the goods they manufacture; those goods will compete favourably with any they may meet on the world's markets. What our manufacturers need is a broader vision and, as has been so well expressed by the hon. leader of this party (Mr. Cre-
rar), courage to go out and fight the commercial battle with those who, in most cases, are not any better armed than they. These trade representatives would be of great assistance in guiding their efforts and would act as a searchlight to guide them in securing new outlets for their goods.
There is another matter to which I should like to direct attention. During the period last fall when grain was being shipped to the market from the farmers in western Canada, very great difficulty was experienced in obtaining cars, more particularly along the lines now operated by the Canadian National system. At practically every shipping point along the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is now under the control of the Canadian National system, and which runs through the constituency which I have the honour to represent, grain buyers were instructed to purchase only one car of grain and no more until that car had been finally disposed of. The grain was taken into the elevator for storage, but no purchases could he made beyond the limitation I have mentioned. The result was that in a very short time the elevators were filled, and the farmer who needed money to meet his financial obligations found himself in a position where he had the value in grain to meet those obligations, but he could not find any market for it. In the meantime, the market value of wheat was going down at an alarming rate, and the loss sustained by those men was very serious. The cause of this condition seems to have been the great shortage on the Canadian National system of cars suitable for shipping grain. In many districts that I visited last fall, the farmers were hauling their grain many miles beyond Grand Trunk Pacific points in order to get to the Canadian Pacific where cars were available.
I am pointing this out more to acquaint the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) with the facts, than for the sake of offering criticism, in the hope that this condition may be remedied before another crop is placed on the market.
Besides the serious loss that has been suffered by the farmers on account of the shortage of grain cars on the Canadian National system, there is another important feature. A very substantial increase in freight rates was granted to the railway companies last year, but owing to the shortage of cars in the early part of the wheat shipping season, our National system was not in a position to take full

advantage of this increase. As a result, we have been called upon to pay a greatly increased freight rate, largely to the Canadian Pacific railway, and on top of that, we shall have to get down into our pockets and pay the deficit on the Canadian National system, thus paying twice,, whereas, had there been sufficient cars to earn the additional revenue mentioned, we would have had to pay only once, to some degree at least.
I now come to a subject which, up to a day or two ago, seemed to be a rather dangerous one for a member sitting in this group to approach. I refer to the Canada Wheat Board. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been patting themselves on the back for the success of the Wheat Board, and they have tried to make it appear that every member in this group was diametrically opposed to it. That is not the fact, as I am sure they are convinced now after the proofs that have been placed on Hansard by previous speakers. Every member of this group was in favour of the continuance of the Wheat Board for another year, and if my hon. friends opposite pat themselves on the back because of the success of the board, what have they to say about its discontinuance? Nothing. As soon as it was seen in the West that the board was a success and a great boon to the farmers, we asked for its continuance for another year; but the Government, supported by those hon. gentlemen said: "No; we will not allow it to continue," this, notwithstanding the fact that the same or practically the same system of buying by Government commission, axisted in 1920 as existed in 1919. Even in the statement read by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Blair), there is no proof that Mr. H. W. Woods, President of the United Farmers of Alberta, was opposed to the Wheat Board if it were kept clear of politics. Mr. Woods, at the Moosejaw convention of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, stated that, in his opinion, if the Canada Wheat Board had been continued for another year, that is the year 1920, it would have saved the farmers of western Canada at least $50,000,000. That is the statement also made by the hon. member for Battle River. I do not know whether he obtained his statistics from Mr. Woods or not. I see he shakes his head, but he will agree with Mr. Woods on that one point at least. I well remember in the debate which took place upon the Wheat Board last year, that the hon. leader of this party hesitated to commit himself to the endorsation of the Canada Wheat Board as a permanent in-33
stitution, but he made a strong plea for its continuance during 1920 until selling conditions became more normal. Compare his attitude with that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and what do we find? The leader of this party asked for the continuation of the Board for another year; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce absolutely refused, no doubt on the strength of representations made to him by parties interested in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and in other lines of com* mercial endeavour, who draw their incomes from the grain produced on the farm on its way to the ultimate consumer.
The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) appears to have made a great discovery. In his speech the other day, amid the tremendous applause of those who sit around him, more particularly those from Western Canada, be announced that there were abuses in the grain trade in Western Canada. Well, that was not at all surprising to those sitting in this group, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that in the very first remarks I made in this House on the Budget of 1918,
I drew the attention of the Government to that very fact. It is now suggested, with a blare of trumpets, that a commission is to be appointed to investigate the grain trade in Western Canada, I have this to say to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders), who seems to be heading this agitation on the Government side and also to the Government: that if this Commission is appointed, and if it is composed of practical men capable of investigating the grain trade, men of integrity, men free from political influence, it will have my entire support; but I would remind the hon. member for Macdonald and the Government, that the people of this country are becoming somewhat tired of the continual procession of commissions that have been appointed since 1917 and before, and which have professed a very great deal, but, in the estimation of the people have accomplished very little. The only real accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, that I can call to mind has been from a commission which is not precisely a Government commission; I refer to the Board of Railway Commissioners. They have succeeded in raising the freight rates. I do not think under the circumstances that hon. gentlemen sitting in this group can be accused of being overly suspicious if they suggest that the appointment of this commission to investigate the grain trade in Western Canada is being



urged more for political purposes than for any real good that may come to the farmers as a result of its investigations.
The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), in what seemed to me to he a very able address this afternoon, pointed out a very patent fact, and I think the same fact was pointed out by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), namely, that the commission under whose jurisdiction the grain trade of Western Canada is at the present time, is a Government commission entirely 1 under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). Therefore, if this new commission finds anything wrong with the grain trade, I fear that the censure will fall on the heads of hon. gentlemen opposite.
A few days ago we had a speech from the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier). I am sure we all thoroughly enjoyed that speech as an oratorical effort. With regard to the main portion of his speech I have nothing to say, because it had to do with what is more or less a family quarrel in the official Opposition party; but I find on page 86 of Hansard a reference which he made to so-called foreign-born living in Western Canada, and I think it is my duty as a representative of some of those foreign-born, and as a citizen of Western Canada, to draw attention to the hon. gentleman's remarks. He said:
Sir, I have no objection to the people of the West; none at all. I respect them. They came her to draw from the soil the wealth which Providence has stored there for those who are sturdy enough to work and obtain it. I have no objection to their helping us to develop the country. But, Mr. Speaker, figures are figures, and I have before me figures that show that west of the Great Lakes 63 per cent of the population are not British born. This is not my fault, but it is a fact. Am I going to preach an alliance with those who have not the same ideals as we have and who do not love our institutions? No, Sir, I cannot do that; for one, I will not consent to it. Everyone, of course, is at liberty to choose his own ally.
I am choosing mine, and I shall try to make my people see as I do in this matter.
Taking into consideration the fact that from year to year the various governments have spent a considerable amount of the people's money in an effort to bring immigration to this country, and have been very successful in obtaining a great number of foreign-born settlers in Western Canada, I think such references are unfortunate, to say the least. We in Western Canada fully realize that before we can have a thoroughly united people, these

people of foreign birth must be assimilated into our population, and must be taught our Canadian ideals. I have travelled among these people to whom my hon. friend makes reference, and from my own personal experience I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have none of his apprehension. I would remind him of the fact that a great many of these so-called foreign-born have come into this country to escape oppression in their native land, and thoroughly appreciate the freedom and the privileges which they enjoy in Canada, and they are true and loyal to our institutions.
I wondered when I heard the hon. gentleman's remarks if he referred to the American-born in Western Canada. We have thousands and thousands of Ameri can-born citizens in Western Canada, anc we have no finer settlers there. These people have practically the same ideals that we have. They are industrious and they are making splendid citizens of this country. I call to mind an instance which will go to prove the statement that these people are rapidly becoming true Canadian citizens. A few years ago a family came to Western Canada from the State of Indiana. There was a young girl in that family. She completed her education in the province of Saskatchewan, and later was employed as a school teacher in the district in which I reside. I have had occasion to go many times to that school house. I have taken a particular interest in it, as I do in most of the schools in my constituency, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no school teacher in this country who is more zealous in teaching the love of Canada and true Canadian ideals to her pupils than that little girl from Indiana.
There comes to my mind another instance. Another family came from the United States to Saskatchewan. The head of this family had been at one time President of the Senate in one of the States of the American Union. He brought with him two sons. The father took up a considerable tract of land, and is one of the largest farmers in the district where he resides. He is a respected citizen, a man who takes a keen interest in all our local institutions. He is keenly interested in all the political affairs of this country, and has given every evidence of loyalty to our institutions. His sons publish a weekly paper in a town in Saskatchewan. I am a subscriber to that little country paper, and I want to say that in its editorial columns I have read just as strong a defence of Canadian and

British institutions as I ever read in any periodical published anywhere in Canada by men who are British or Canadian-born.
I happened to come across one of these editorials to-day, and I shall endeavour to read without mentioning the names which appear in it. I merely quote this article to show the class of editorials that appear in this paper, published by sons of a man president of the Senate in a certain state in the American Union and who has come to Canada and settled here. The occasion that brought forth this editorial was the dedication of a community hall in the town where these people reside. A certain gentleman was asked to make an address at the meeting and he made the statement that he found himself in a district in which the majority were of foreign origin. A letter was published later in this paper commenting on the address of this gentleman and the editorial comment was as follows:
But there is one reference in Mr. Griffin's letter that the Despatch takes exception to, and
that is where he states that Mr 

 found
himself in the midst of a foreign majority.
Mr. 
was not in any such place at the hall
He was visiting a Canadian town and was surrounded by Canadians. And we venture the opinion that Mr. 
 knows that he could
travel the length of Great Britain and her possessions and nowhere would he find a community living more in harmony, more loyal to Canadian institutions, or more proud of British freedom. The fact that we are not natives is, strictly speaking, something that we all have in common. But our people are naturalized in law and in heart and would resent by an overwhelming majority at the poll any candidate who sought to curry favour by introducing sectionalism.
That is the sentiment expressed by some of the so-called foreign born. It has often occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty we encounter in Western Canada in assimilating the foreign-born, lies not with those people themselves but with our own Canadian-born and British-born subjects. It appears to me that what we need is a broader and stronger Canadian national spirit. When you find men who are always vaunting their birth-place and proclaiming from the house-tops the fact that they are descended from fathers born in England, Scotland, or Ireland, as the case may be-when you find Canadian-born men walking around and calling themselves Englishmen, Scotchmen and Irishmen, what can you expect those who come from Germany to do? Why, the German-born settler in western Canada will say " I am German;" and why should he not? What we want in this country, Mr. Speaker, is more
33i
people who will boldly declare, when asked concerning their nationality, that they are Canadians.
In connection with this subject I should like to cite a personal incident that occurred when the last census was being taken in Canada. It may be of interest to those who have charge of the present work in connection with the forthcoming census. I was in the town of Unity, Saskatchewan, when the Census Commissioner came and requested the necessary information in order to compile his statistics. We came to the point of nationality and the commissioner asked me, of course, what my nationality was. I told him I was Canadian. "Yes," he said, "I understand that; we are all Canadians. But you must be descended from people of extraneous origin. " Well," I replied, " I am not descended from any other nationality at all; I am just a Canadian." " What was your father's nationality?"-he then demanded. I said: " My father is a Canadian." The next question was:	"Was he born in Canada?"
I said "yes.u " Well then," he said becoming rather annoyed, " Where was your grandfather born?" I replied:	"He was
born in Canada and you may go back one of two generations more and I will give you the same answer." Then he said: " Well, we have no column in this return for Canadian nationality." And my answer was: " If I am not a Canadian, I am nothing, and you may call me a Negro or a Chinaman or anything else you choose. My answer is simply, I am a Canadian."


Mr. HAY:: Was that in 1911?


Henry Oswald Wright: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much having occupied so much time, but I desire for a moment to refer to a paragraph in the speech delivered the other day by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). I had not the privilege of hearing the hon. gentleman's speech, but on looking over the report of his address in Hansard, I find that it was more or less an attack of a rather violent nature against this party and particularly against our leader (Mr. Crerar). I should like to read one paragraph of the hon. gentleman's speech. On page 306 of Hansard, the hon. member for East Algoma is reported as follows:
What has been the attiude of the hon. member for Marquette, their leader, towards the farmers of this country? The hon. gentleman was Minister of Agriculture for at least a year and a half at a period when every Government in Canada, provincial and federal, backed by the whole body of public opinion, was bending

its energies to increase production, when the Dominion Treasury one might say, was wide open for the hon. gentleman to use its funds in any way that would stimulate our agricultural production. Can he point to one single Act that passed through this House at his suggestion to improve the condition of our farmers? Not one single Act or suggestion.
We see expressed in that paragraph the opinion of the hon. member for East Al-goma of the hon. leader of this party. Without further comment, let me read the opinion of another hon. gentleman of this House, the right hon. member for Kings, Nova Scotia, (Sir Robert Borden), the late Prime Minister, of whom the leader of this party was at one time a colleague. On June 4th 1919, on the occasion of the resignation of the hon. member for Marquette, the right hon. member for Kings wrote as follows:
My dear Mr. Crerar, I have received with deep and unfeigned regret your resignation as a member of the Government but I entirely appreciate and respect the sincerity of the convictions which have impelled you to take that course. It will be my immediate duty to acquaint His Excellency the Governor General with your decision and to request his authority for the acceptance of your resignation. During the period of nearly two years in which you have been one of my colleagues your high sense of public duty, your fine ability and indefatigable energy have made your service to the country especially valuable. Within that period problems of an exceptionally difficult character have continually presented themselves, and I am most grateful to you, and to all my colleagues for the loyal assistance and earnest effort which on all such occasions have been of invaluable assistance to me in the consideration of such questions.
My association with you as one of my colleagues will always be to me a happy memory and I know that I may express this to you on behalf of all the members of the Government.
I am very grateful for your kind words in respect to my own part in public affairs since it has been my privilege to have you as one of my colleagues.
With every good wish Believe me,
Dear Mr. Crerar,
Yours faithfully,



R. L. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here the opinion of two members of the House with respect to the leader of the Progressive party. The first is the opinion of the member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). It is quite possible that he may hold his opinion in higher esteem than he does that of the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) but I reserve the right to use my own judgment in the matter, and for my pa.rt I prefer the judgment of the former leader of the Government.
I would like to refer for a moment to the speech delivered a short time ago by

the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). It will be remembered that the Minister of Militia followed the hon. member for Red Deer in this debate. The remarks of the Minister of Militia in reference to the splendid speech delivered by the hon. member for Red Deer were very scant indeed. He had no answer to make to the criticisms offered by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark) and I think there was a very good reason for it-he could not find any arguments against them. He brushed aside the splendid effort, the magnificent speech of the hon. member for Red Deer, with the statement that this country was not very much interested in British politics, that it was much more concerned with Canadian politics. Well, we all agree with that statement, but did the minister not realize that in speaking as he did he was passing censure upon the Prime Minister. Practically the whole of the recent speech of the hon. member for Red Deer was a reply to a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the last session of Parliament, when the latter made a comparison between British and Canadian politics and drew his own inference therefrom, and in the opinion of a good many, the premier's conclusions were not very well founded.
I would like to pass on to a paragraph in the speech of the Minister of Militia in which he referred to the commercial activities of the organized farmers of Western Canada. On page 43 of Hansard we find that the minister made the following statement:'
But there is another point of view in regard to this matter. It is said that we in Canada are to-day suffering, to some extent at least, from unemployment. Is it a patriotic thing, or a sound thing economically, to take the money of the people of Canada at this critical period, to send it across to the United States to give employment in the factories there, to pay wages and keep employed citizens of the United States, while so many good Canadians during the past few months have been looking for jobs in this country? Would it not, in the first place, be a more patriotic thing, and in the second place, a sounder thing economically, if the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and his friends of the United Grain Growers would look about them in this country to the scores, yes, even hundreds, of Canadian manufacturers who can supply the goods they require, and try to make terms with them, spend their money in this country and thus give employment to unemployed Canadians.
That sentiment meets with the approval of all. I do not need to go into any details as to why the United Grain Growers' Company did not handle Cana-
10 p.m. dian goods. That question was very thoroughly dealt with by

the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) this afternoon. He stated that on the organization of the commercial activities of the United Farmers' they went to the Canadian manufacturers and tried to obtain Canadian goods. They could not do so because the Canadian manufacturers would not sell to them. Now, in all fairness I would say this: There may be a good reason why the Canadian manufacturers could not supply them, but they have never considered it worth while to make that explanation. When the Minister of Militia was reading us this lecture across the floor of the House perhaps it would have been more to the point for him to have turned about and addressed his remarks to the manufacturer members who sit behind him. If anybody is to blame for the condition that exists, for the quantity of American goods that is being handled by the Grain Growers' Organization in Western Canada, it is those very manufacturers who refuse to supply Canadian goods. I wonder if the Government are so keen and so anxious as they profess to keep their money in Canada and in all cases to purchase Canadian goods. We had a short time ago the case of the Government wishing to re-organize the Civil Service. Did they employ a Canadian firm to do that work? I think not. It appears to me that I heard a faint whisper somewhere that they went to Chicago and obtained the services of the Griffenhagen Company to carry out this work of reorganization, or disorganization, or whatever it may be. In this connection I would like to refer to another case. I am told that there is a garage maintained in the city of Ottawa in which are housed a number of automobiles for the use of Cabinet Ministers, Government cars paid for by Government money. I am not criticising that. It may be all right to buy these cars for the ministers; they may be perfectly entitled to use them. That is not the point I want to bring out. It is well known to you, Sir, and to hon. members that quite a number of splendid automobiles are manufactured in Canada by Canadian labour. Did the Government purchase cars of Canadian manufacture for the ministers' use? I think not. It strikes me that one of the makes that they run is called the "Cadillac," and I never heard of a "Cadillac" car being manufactured in Canada.
Another example comes to my mind. I remember very well a year or two ago when the Department of the Interiorwhich was then presided over by the present Prime Minister-decided to plough certain wild prairie land held by the Department of Indian Affairs and it was necessary to purchase machinery for the purpose. Did the hon. Minister of the Interior of that day, who is now the Prime Minister, insist on the purchase of Canadian made machinery for that purpose? Oh, no. He purchased Rumely traction engines, six of them, manufactured in Laporte, Indiana, notwithstanding the fact, which is very well known, that good traction engines are manufactured in the province of Ontario by Canadian labour, using, I presume, Canadian materials.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have already taken up more time than I intended. I just wish to make a few remarks in regard to my stand on the vote which will shortly be taken. I was elected in the general election of 1917 to support-not the present Government but the preceding government for the period of the war. I wish to emphasize that point, it was for the period of the war that I was elected to support the Government then under the leadership of the right hon. member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden). We met in Battleford constituency-the executives of the two old political parties-and we came to an understanding to form a union of forces for a specific purpose-for the purpose of electing a member to come to Ottawa and support a Union Government for the period of the war, the specific purpose being the winning of the war; no other issue whatsoever entered into the arrangement. I remember on one or two platforms the tariff issue was mentioned, and the answer was given that we were not concerned about the tariff at all; the point in our minds was whether the money derived from the tariff would be spent in the Dominion of Canada or in Germany. That was the .sentiment all through the campaign. I believe that I am properly expressing the sentiments of the vast majority not only in the constituency I have the honour to represent, but in all of Western Canada, and, I think, in a good deal of Eastern Canada as well, when I say that, regardless of any constitutional aspect of the case, the people of this country believe that the Government has outlived its mandate and that there should be a general election.
I differ from the Government on their tariff policy, and I take it that that is the chief issue in the speech of His Excellency. Therefore it will be my duty to vote want of confidence in the Government.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
take to myself and to offer to the House and to the country a comforting thought. I think that in the strife of party politics men sometimes magnify the evil which is to be wrought upon their beloved country if their own particular notion of public affairs should not happen to prevail. It is as well perhaps that we should guard against an error of that sort, and while each of us may press as earnestly as be likes his particular line of thought, it will be better, I think, if we keep in mind the fact that even if our view shall not prevail the sun will still rise and the King's Government will be carried on.
Naturally, from my point of view, I think the best kind of Government that this country can have is a Liberal Government. I think the traditions and history of the past show that. And if we may have a Liberal Government at no distant day, I trust that it may be as successful in the future as it has been in the days that have gone by. But perhaps that admirable condition of affairs is not attainable; it may be that we cannot have the blessing of a Liberal Government at an early day, and we may have to be content with a Farmer Government. It is quite conceivable, it is quite possible. Now, the prospect, if you so regard it, of a Farmer Government sitting in the seats of the mighty here, does not alarm me in any way as it does hon. gentlemen opposite. I cannot subscribe to the Farmers' view on all things, but I decline to regard the farmers of this country as Bolshevists, or Anarchists, or Communists, or any other kind of 'ists except good Canadianists. I have an abiding faith that if in the movement of events our Farmer friends should be entrusted with power the sense of responsibility which will then come to them will lead them to pursue a moderate course, and that though we may not agree with it on one side or the other, I cannot conceive that from that course there will flow any particular disaster to this Dominion. So a Liberal Government is the first choice; and a Farmer Government would not be too bad; and I will go so far as to say that if the worst comes to the worst-and that means if we have a Tory Government-the country could survive event that. The truth is, it is a case in which the patient, that is, the Dominion, is so strong that it can stand the doctoring schemes of any one of these parties and still survive.
I join most heartily in what has been said in congratulation of my right hon. friend

the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) upon his attaining at a comparatively early age the high position which he now occupies. It has been my misfortune often to differ with the right hon. gentleman, and I am very much afraid that our conceptions of public affairs are such that our difference will continue; but that should not prevent me recognizing, as I do in all sincerity, that he will bring to the duties of his high office great qualities-first, the quality, the superb and highest of all qualities, high personal character; he will bring to it marked ability, of which we all have had evidence; and he will bring to it untiring industry. These are great qualities. May I not say too-and that is where the comforting thought comes in- that we have similar qualities in the two hon. gentlemen who lead the other parties? In my hon. friend who sits at my side, the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King), and in my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the leader of the Farmers' party, we have men who have also youth on their side, who have character, who have talent, who have industry. And from that I draw this thought, that no matter what may occur, this country cannot go so very far wrong when it comes under the leadership of any one of these three gentlemen. These qualities that I have mentioned-personal character, great ability and great industry -are indeed splendid qualities in mankind; they are qualities which each of these gentlemen brings as an asset to the Party which he leads: they are qualities which they all bring as assets in the common service of our country.
Among the subjects that have been discussed in this debate on the Address, not the least interesting has been the question of the League of Nations. It is true, as my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said yesterday, that our representatives at the League of Nations have valiantly defended in this House that which nobody is attacking. This House is unanimous in its belief in the League of Nations. I myself am most cordially in favour of the League. I am not only in favour of it in principle, but I am in the main in favour of the machinery whereby the League of Nations is created. It may be within the recollection of the House that when the question of the Treaty of Versailles was before Parliament I gave expression to some views concerning Canada's participation in the League of Nations, in which I was careful to say that I spoke for myself only. I differed from the hon.

gentlemen opposite and I differed from many of the hon. gentlemen surrounding me. I want to be permitted again to state briefly my position in that respect.
I have said that I warmly favoured the League of Nations. It has not accomplished all that was hoped for; it has disappointed some people, and many look upon it to-day with very great gloom. I do not take that view. I regard the League of Nations as a noble scheme for a noble end, and even though it may not accomplish all that was intended, I regard it as a case, indeed, in which it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. Although the League of Nations has disappointed me in some respects, and although it is particularly disappointing in the failure of the United States to join-I can hardly conceive of its being a success if that nation stays out-nevertheless, with all the criticism that is offered, I still desire to be counted as a warm admirer and supporter of the League of Nations.
My difference was with regard to the manner in which Canada was participating in that League. Again let me remind the House that I am speaking entirely for myself on that particular point. My view of the matter was this: in all that makes for our Imperial relations; in all that concerns the relations between Canada and the Mother Country and other portions of the British Empire, in what I may call the inner circle of our Imperial family, I want Canada to occupy, as she has occupied for many years, a position of ever-increasing weight and influence. When we come to deal with foreign affairs, I am not desirous that Canada shall play a part of her own, separate and apart from the British Empire. I want the British Empire, when we come to deal with foreign affairs, to enter every conference as a unit, not as representing several places. Even in matters concerning Canada alone; even in Imperial matters in which Canada is particularly interested, my desire would naturally be that Canada should be, as she has been, represented by Canadians, but I would have them go into the conference not merely as Canadians, but as representatives of the British Empire. I expressed the fear-and I am not going to withdraw that expression today-that with the best of intentions-and I do not for a moment question the good intentions of the gentlemen concerned-this declaration on the part of the Dominions that they must have a separate existence in all these conferences, and a separate existence in the League of Nations, was not
making for that Imperial unity that we should desire, but was paving the way towards separation. I have seen no reason to change my view in that respect.
There is a small party in Canada which desires the separation of this country from the British Empire; which desires the independence of Canada; which desires Canada to withdraw from the Empire and set up as an independent sovereign nation.
I have spoken of it as a small party; it may be larger than we know. I speak of it as a small party because only a few gentlemen have identified themselves publicly with that movement. They are gentlemen of high standing, gentlemen of ability, gentlemen whose sincerity we can respect, even though we may not agree with their conclusions. But I want to call the attention- of the House to this significant fact:
I find that so far as I have come in contact with or learned the views of these gentlemen, every advocate of the independence of Canada looks with approval upon Canada's position in the League of Nations because he regards it as the beginning of a movement for the separation of Canada from the Empire.
That view is not held by me alone. There are several things occurring in relation to the proceedings of the League of Nations, to some of which I will draw attention. The speeches of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), of the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), our three representatives at the League of Nations, were very interesting. They gave us some information and presented their case as gentlemen of ability always do. But there were some things going on in the League of Nations about which they did not tell us; and it is a pity that we have to look to outside sources for some of the information that we ought to get here. I think that as the consequences of our action unfold themselves, there will be a revision of some of the judgments hastily formed a year or two ago-I think I see evidence already that on both sides of the House light is breaking.
There is a financial side to the question which some members will regard as important. The League of Nations is a rather expensive luxury. I hold in my hand an article which describes what is called by responsible men the "great extravagance'' of that body. I will trouble the House only with the headlines:
Fat Sinecures on Paid Personnel of Commissions. Allied captains receive much more

than Marshal Foch, state French. Flagrant Injustice. Most Scandalous of Anomalies Inaugurated by Versailles Treaty. Princely Chauffeurs.
Now, of all that extravagance Canada pays her share. I am not presenting that as a serious side of the matter; by-and-by some members of the House who feel more keenly interested in that class of question than I do may draw attention to it. I only mention it in passing; I do not regard it as the gravest situation. The gravest position arising out of our action with respect to the League of Nations is that we are having the unfortunate spectacle-the word is not too strong-of the represen-1 tatives of Canada and the representatives of the Empire quarrelling in the eyes of the public at the Peace Conference and at the League of Nations. There is evidence of that, and as the hon. gentleman did not give us a full report of all these things, we have to resort to the press. I find the following report from Geneva, dated December, 1920:
During yesterday's voting the British Empire was divided on nearly every question, Canada and South Africa voting against Great Britain regarding Armenia, and Australia abstaining from voting when the question of Bulgaria was before the Assembly.
Canada and the Empire voting against one another, quarrelling before the wide world, and showing that there is not that unity of the Empire which all should desire to bring about. Well, there is further information along the same line. I have before me a quotation from a New York journal. Careful observers in the public press are noticing what is happening in these proceedings; they are noticing the quarrels between the representatives of the Mother Country and those of the Dominions, and every enemy of Great Britain and the Empire is getting aid and comfort from these quarrels-which, I say, are not creditable to Canada, not creditable to the dominions generally. Here is an article from the New York World:
The Dominions disagree not only with the Mother Country, but with one another. England wants the Council to be supreme; Canada, South Africa and India claim equal rights for the Assembly. Canada is supporting the compulsory adjudication of international disputes, as urged by Elihu Root, which England opposes. On the questions of admitting Germany to the League and disarmament, as to which England has expressed no final opinion, the dominions are sharply in conflict.
Again we have evidence that the differences and quarrels between the representatives of the Mother Country and the representatives of Canada and the other domin-

ions are attracting the notice of the outside world; and who shall say that conditions of that kind are making for Imperial unity? Let me quote another passage. We are all acquainted with that venerable labour leader, whose eloquent voice we heard down in the Museum two or three years ago, Mr. Samuel Gompers. There is much in his record that I admire; but in this particular instance, I regret what he had to say. He said:
"It was my experience," continued Mr. Gompers, "and I look upon it as something of a dependable guide, that the votes of the representatives of these Dominions and Commonwealths were more often with the United States than with Britain."
That is the fruit of Canada's participation in the matter-insisting on having an opportunity to play her own game. I know every hon. member in this House feels as I do in regard to the need for Imperial unity. I do not ascribe anything but the best motives to any hon. gentleman who differs from me, but I ask my hon. friends to think seriously over the situation as presented where, instead of having an Empire with a united front to promote peace, we have the representatives of the different sections of the Empire quarrelling in the eyes of the foreign world. It may be remembered that in discussing the League of Nations in this House, some of us took exception to one particular clause. In the particular point that I have been speaking of for the last few minutes, I have been speaking for myself, and I do not wish anybody now to endorse what I say. There came a moment in that discussion, when in the name of the Liberal party in this House, I made a motion in the House concerning the League of Nations. There was in that League one section known as Article X, which, if I may be permitted, I will read. It reads:
The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
We did not undertake, although we did not like that clause, to move an amendment to it. We recognized the fact that a treaty, a bargain signed by a number of nations, could not be amended by the will of one. We did not even adopt the Washington practice, the method adopted there, of making reservations. All that we proposed to do was to say that there was a vagueness about that clause, and

that it would be the part of wisdom if, while adopting the Treaty, while confirming it without any qualifications, we should place on record our understanding of what that clause should mean. Therefore, with the consent of my friends around me, I moved the following motion:
That in giving such approval-
That was the approval to the Treaty-
-this House in no way assents to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion, but declares that the question of what part, if any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, is to be determined at all times as occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament.
That seemed a reasonable proposal. How were we met? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) denounced the motion. He declared that Article X and the Covenant generally were all right; that the instrument was a perfect one; that he would not have any interference; that it was a Holy of Holies; that it must not be touched, and so we were voted down and the League of Nations, including Article X, was approved. What do we find now? The right hon. gentleman, who would not listen to our representations in this House, went across the seas and deliberately proposed to strike out Article X altogether. The House may remember that when the question first came before the House, when the Prime Minister of that day, the hon. member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), delivered a speech in explanation of the Treaty which he was submitting to the House, I ventured to ask him the question what would happen if the House should neglect or refuse to endorse the Treaty. My right hon. friend said that in that case there would have to be a change of Government, and he would have to go out. So this was such a sacred document that interference with it in any degree would have brought on us that dissolution which some people seem to be so much alarmed about to-day. No words seemed to be too strong for my right hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) to utter in denouncing our proposition, which was not an amendment, not a reservation, but merely a declaration which we thought would make clear what should be the attitude of this Parliament in relation to any question of war. At that time, the Minister of Justice gave us his views as to how the matter should be dealt with. He said that it was highly improper that we should attempt to make any reservation or amendment or declaration of any form. He said that the treaty must go as it was; that it was all right. There was no word of doubt on his part. Then he went on to say that if it turned out by experience that there was something wrong about the treaty, if it needed change or amendment, there was a way in which that could be done. I quote from his speech:
X think that with what I have pointed out with regard to a better opportunity that will come for dealing with this Covenant, if it requires improvement as soon as the League of Nations has been brought into existence-with that present in our minds, and with this further fact present to our minds, that if any of us consider modification essential or of great importance, or if this House upon further consideration-
Observe that-
__should come to the conclusion that modification in connection with Article X or any other provision is necessary, it will be perfectly open and competent to this House, when it sends its representative to the League of Nations, to send him there with Instruction as to the amendment, whether it be this or ^ any other that, in the opinion of this House, is essential or necessary or desirable in the interests of Canada.
So the Minister of Justice pointed out that the proper, and the only proper, course for an amendment was that instruction should be given by the Parliament of Canada. What instruction did this Parliament ever give to the minister to go overseas and demand that Article X be stricken out? Article X and the whole treaty constituted a solemn compact to which this House became a party, and I deny the right of the Minister of Justice or anybody else, without the authority of this House, to go to Geneva and undertake, in the name of Canada, to move to amend that contract. The Minister of Justice did not even have instructions from his Government. I asked the question: What instructions were given? I asked the Government to bring down the Order in Council. They brought it down, and it simply set forth that a meeting of the League of Nations was to be held, and that the right hon. Minister of Justice, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster), and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), should be chosen as representatives of Canada. Not a line of instruction. By the very method that the Minister of Justice himself laid down, he should have come to this House for instructions, and he should not have tampered with that Covenant in a single line. His action in that regard was a specimen of the autocracy which this Government

is manifesting all the time. It was an exhibition of the contempt that the Government has for Parliament, and it is one of the reasons why every man who respects the rights of Parliament will be justified to-day in voting no confidence in this Administration.
I have heard no effective answer, Mr. Speaker, to the contention advanced by the hon. leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this debate, that this Government no longer had a mandate to conduct public affairs, and that they were carrying on public affairs without any good reason to believe that they had the confidence of the country. I said I have heard no effective answer. Of course there has been one answer. It has come from many quarters, and has always been the same. They tell us that our right to sit here is within the law. They point to the British North America Act which says that Parliament "may" sit for five years, and they in effect translate that "may" into "shall," and make it appear it is our duty to sit here for the full term of five years. Sir, that is not the spirit of the British constitution. It is not enough in these days to say that a thing is within the law. That which is within the law is not always expedient. That which is within the law is not always honourable. I think it was the right hon. the Minister of Justice who pointed us to what was occurring at Washington. There, he said, was a government which was defeated four months ago, and is still in power. Well, the American system has its merits, or they would not have it, for they are a pretty intelligent people, and it is a fair assumption that for everything that exists in their system there is some good reason. But their system in that respect is not ours. There is a rigidity in the American system which no doubt has its purpose. They provide that their election shall take place on a given day, and you cannot change that at all. I do not say it is wrong; it is their method, and as I have said, it must have some merit or they would not have it. But our system is just the reverse. There is an elasticity in the British system which has its purpose and the purpose is not that we shall sit out for the full term of five years, but that as there become evidences of change of public opinion in the country Parliament may be dissolved in order that the Government of the day may ascertain whether or not Parliament possesses the confidence of the country. The argument advanced by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition 
was fortified by many others, and particularly in the very able speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday. What thoughtful man could have listened to that speech without seeing that the whole spirit of the British constitution was against hon. gentlemen who hold office at the present time?
The Prime Minister and one or two other gentlemen speaking on that side made allusion to my own experience in Nova Scotia as having some bearing on this question. Why, they said, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was Premier of Nova Scotia and resigned, there was no election necessary. That is true, but the conditions were not the same. I was for twelve years the premier of that province. I had made a record. The people thought it remarkable. I remember one kind friend, who was willing to pay me a compliment, although we differed on political questions, said the Government was all right so long as I stayed, but when I left, it would go to pieces. Well, I left it, and turned over the affairs to Mr. Murray, and he has been there for 25 years. Here in the changing scenes of this Ottawa climate, men may come and men may go, but down in Nova Scotia a good Liberal Government apparently may go on forever.
None of us on this side have contended that a change of leadership necessarily calls for an election. There is no such argument. When Sir John Macdonald died in 1891, nobody claimed that dissolution of Parliament was necessary. There had been an election only a few weeks before. When, at a later stage, Sir John Abbott passed off the stage, and Sir John Thompson succeeded him, nobody thought that an election was necessary. There was no change of policy, merely a change of the individual. And in later years, in every case of the kind where change in leadership takes place not involving any change in policy, there was no reason for having an election. Nobody contends that the mere fact of a change of leader creates the necessity for an election.
But what is the situation here? We have a new leader of the Government; there is no dispute about that. We have a new name; we have a new policy. Now it appears to me that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is on the' horns of a dilemma: either we have a new policy, or we have not. If we have a new policy, if it is a new Government, with a new leader, and a new policy, then no argument is

needed to show that you must go to the country and obtain a mandate to support that leader and his policy. Oh, but, some say, it is not new, it is the same old business, there is no change, so you do not need an election. Well, there is a change of name. Mr. Speaker, a change of name to an individual or to a corporation is a grave and serious matter. The man who undertakes without lawful authority to change his name, the man who travels under an assumed name without lawful authority, the man who travels under a false name, furnishes presumptive evidence that he has fraudulent intent. If this is the same old policy, what justification have they for calling the party by a new name? Is it not presumptive evidence of camouflage, or something described by a stronger word? If the right hon. the Prime Minister says it is the same policy, the same Government, the same group of men, the same old thing, he cannot say that and at the same time justify the change of name. There is no escape from that. Either this is the old policy under a false name, or a new policy on which they are afraid to appeal to the country.
Several hon. gentlemen have expressed their personal opinions as to the understanding at the time of their election. A, B and C say: There was no bargaining with me. I was elected for the term of five years; no conditions were imposed, and therefore I assume it is right for the Government to go on. Many of us can probably say that, but what was the experience of any individual, where the matter was not discussed at all, is not important. What is important is, what was the general understanding in the country everywhere, and surely it does not admit of debate that the general understanding in the country was that the Government was chosen for the purpose of the war. Necessarily there had to be a laying aside of controverted questions in order that the Unionist Government might be formed. For what period were those controverted questions laid aside? I can imagine the interview of the Prime Minister of that day with one of my Liberal friends. "We must come together, gentlemen," he says, "for the winning of the war." "Certainly," says my Liberal friend. "Well then," says the Prime Minister "we will hang together till the war is over." "Yes, that is all right. We will lay aside controverted questions for that period." "Hold on," says the Prime Minister, "I want you to agree to put aside
these matters for four years after the war." I do not believe that even my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) would have accepted the condition if laid down in that way.
It is perfectly evident that the Unionist Government was formed for a period during which reasonable request could be made for laying aside controverted questions, but the war being over, the moment events so shaped themselves that these controverted questions were thrusting themselves up for consideration, that moment the mandate of the Government to conduct public affairs ceased. I do not see how that can be a matter of dispute at all. Oh, some may say, it is a very foolish thing, this proposal that the Government's mandate has ended. Well, if we are foolish people in contending that, we are foolish in pretty good company. The Hon. Mr. Carvell, the former member for Carleton, New Brunswick, was a very active member of the Union Government, but Mr. Carvell felt that the mandate of the Government had ceased, and he retired. He is not a foolish man. He has received one of the highest offices in the gift of the Government. That, at all events, is a testimony to his sagacity and his capacity. There are others. My hon. friend the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), who so ably and so satisfactorily, I may say, discharged the duties of Minister of Militia and Defence, must have felt that the mandate of the Government had ended, for he resigned.
The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) also felt that the mandate of the Government had expired, that now questions having arisen, it was incumbent upon him to resign. Similarly, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the moment they attempted to deal with the troublesome question of the tariff, found that he could not agree with them and therefore resigned; and he is not a fool. And the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), a very active and prominent member of the Union Government, evidently took the same view. He is not here to-night, but I should be doing him no injustice to say that the action he has taken proves that he regarded the Government as having exhausted its mandate, for which reason he has resigned. Now, in the face of the general understanding which cannot be disputed, in the face of the action of all these members of the Liberal party who were in the Government, it is evident that we on this side of

the House are justified in saying that the Government has exhausted its mandate and should appeal to the country.
These things are so patent that when the new Leader of the Government was called to his high position, it would have been, it seems to me, the part of wisdom for the right hon. gentleman to have said at once to his colleagues: "Gentlemen, I must appeal to the country, for I do not feel that I ought to carry on in this way." However, some of them apparently persuaded him to keep on, at a time when conditions were not at all propitious for such a course, He would have been well advised, I think, and it would have been far better for all concerned, had he, at the time the change was made, declared that the conditions were such as to compel him to appeal to the country.
Now, hon. gentlemen opposite try to comfort themselves with the belief that all is going well. A dozen members have spoken and have said that all is well. They ask: "What is the need of a change? The Government is all right; everything is going well; why make a change at all?" Well, they might comfort themselves with that belief, but they will not comfort any unbiased friends outside. Let me read an example of the opinions that are expressed by those outside of this House. This is what a good Conservative newspaper says:
Cabinet reorganization, so essential and so long deferred, must be faced by the new administration without much further delay,
Mark you, "essential and long deferred"; and that was in November last. At that time it had long been necessary, and now it is immediate and pressing.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the paper?


William Stevens Fielding: I am reading from the Montreal Gazette, through its Ottawa correspondent. After some complimentary remarks to the Prime Minister, indicating that his visit to the West has strengthened him, and so forth, this correspondent goes on to say:
He can now devote himself to organization of his Cabinet and the initiation of constructive measures. It cannot be denied that reorganization in essential for the further success of the new administration. Some members of the Government, through age or ill-health, desire to retire; others should be retired; and others again must give way to men in whom the party and the country have greater confidence. There should be at least five changes in the Government. There is a long stern fight ahead of the administration, and in that fight success can only be attained by men of strong physique

and mentality who have confidence in themselves, and in whom the people have confidence.
That was four months ago. At that time reorganization was overdue; it had long been needed. And now it is absolutely necessary. This newspaper tells us that five changes were necessary. How many ministers do I see present? Let me see, -one, two, three-I believe there are just five ministers sitting on the benches tonight! Now, I should not like to have the task of selecting the five whom this correspondent thinks should go. I am perfectly willing to vote them all out en masse, bag and baggage; I should not like to have to choose from among these genial and estimable gentlemen and to determine whose heads should go upon the block. But when they console themselves with this soothing delusion that all is going well; when they see such unmistakable evidence before them day by day, in the by-elections, of the trend of public opinion and public desire; when they see public opinion reflected in the utterances of their candid friends everywhere, telling them that they have outlived their usefulness, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Prime Minister of the day can complacently hang on to the last moment. Someone remarked today that the Tupper Government had held on to the last moment. Yes, and the result was a catastrophe; and if this Government should hang on to the bitter end, depend upon it the catastrophe will be greater. I think, therefore, every argument that has been advanced in support of the contention that the Government should obtain a mandate from the people is absolutely well-founded and well-supported.
But we are told that we ought to support the Government for all the good things it has done. Well, we have a little difficulty in determining the time at which we should begin the accounting. One minister has said that the Government is only responsible for what has happened since July last, while other hon. members have contended that this Government is the successor of all governments that have been in power since 1911; and that is the sounder view. My good friend, the Prime Minister, may to-day properly be held responsible for the policy of the Conservative party from the year 1911 down to the present time. He was associated with the late Prime Minister and was always ready to defend that hon. gentleman's government. I think, therefore, we shall be doing him no injustice if we hold him responsible for that government's conduct. But, hon. members

say: Look at the noble and patriotic action of this Government in regard to the war! Well, Mr. Speaker, it if a great thing, if you want praise, to shout about the war. But I want to remind my hon. friends that the war did not begin with the general election of 1917. The war had already been in progress before that and we have to go back earlier.
I pass over the manner in which the Government obtained power in 1911; I pass over the unholy alliance which they made with the Nationalists of Quebec which was the foundation of all the trouble that has occurred in that province since; I pass over the slogan of "No truck nor trade with the Yankees" which so aptly expressed their policy at that date; I pass over the breach of faith they committed when, after being elected to prevent free wheat, they put free wheat on the list; I pass over the breach of faith which they committed also in regard to potatoes-I pass over all these things and come to the war. The war began in 1914 and lasted for four years and a quarter, and for three-fourths of that time the Government led by the right hon. member for King's, Nova Scotia, the late Prime Minister, carried on a partizan Administration with all the evils attendant upon partizan patronage. For three years out of the four they made no attempt to form a Union Government, and they made overtures in that direction only when they were in extremities and were likely to be beaten.
That is the whole story-four years of war and only one year of Union Government. For three years they took the money which the people of Canada voted through this Parliament so liberally and patriotically for the purposes of the war and expended it with the help of every patronage committee of Canada. And that is patriotism! That is the record of this Government in wartime, Mr. Speaker, and when the people of Canada some day look into it they will see what a sorry record my hon. friends opposite have made. If we are going to have in this debate the history of the Government's action in the war, let us have the truth, and let us not be told that the Government is a patriotic body, when for three years out of four it carried on partizanship in all its extremes.
Now, I have no desire to detract from anything that has been accomplished by my right hon. friend from King's, Nova Scotia, in his capacity as Prime Minister. He occupied that high position for a long period in the midst of exciting scenes, and
it is but reasonable to believe, as I believe and willingly admit, that he has much good legislation to his credit. On the great question upon which the parties broke, on the great question which was the basis of the formation of the Union Government, I agreed with him and I supported him, and I have no regrets to express for that course. But when we are told that he and the hon. gentlemen associated with him pursued a patriotic course throughout the war, I join issue on that assertion and reply that for three-fourths of the time the Government played the game of partizans and not of patriots.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I am occupying more time than I intended, but there are two or three other questions that I should like to refer to.
With regard to the Washington representation I am not going to offer any criticism, but in all sincerity and respect I desire to offer a word of advice. The Minister of Justice, I think rather smarting under some chaff that came from this side of the House, said that the Government would appoint an Ambassador to Washington whenever they found the right man. Well, I suppose he was obliged to say something like that, but my hope and belief is that the Government have revised their judgment in that matter and that they have concluded not to send an Ambassador to Washington. I am not criticising their action, I am merely venturing, in all sincerity, to offer a word of respectful advice. I know something of how work is done at Washington. Have commercial agents, as many as you like, where there is business to be done,-I offer no objection,
__but I affirm that if Canada sends an
Ambassador to Washington he will degenerate into nothing better than a clerk under the British Ambassador-that is all he can become.
I submit that the arrangement which exists to-day is a far better one. If there is a real question between Canada and the United States the Ministers-in-Council deal with the question, they thresh it out; and a minister leaving Ottawa this afternoon will be in Washington tomorrow afternoon and able to present the Governments views to the American government, or to whomsoever he may be dealing with. A minister of the Crown coming in that way fresh from Council, fresh from consultation with his colleagues, is more useful and more likely to be an efficient representative than any clerk dawdling around Washington, and half the time doing nothing at

all. I am not finding fault with anything the Government have done. I am in all earnestness and all sincerity, in the light of my experience, advising them to drop the Washington business.
Then there is the Imperial Conference. Now I think the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was not quite fair to the Government. He asked the Government to bring down to this House a statement of the policy which they intend to pursue at the Imperial Conference. Mr. 11 p.m. Speaker, you cannot take the Breeks off a Hielan man.
You cannot get from anybody that which he does not possess. I do not say it offensively, I do not say it by way of censure, but I believe this Government does not know about any policy with which to go to the Imperial Conference. There is nothing to confer about. There is a great deal of rubbish talked about these Imperial Conferences-a great deal of rubbish. I agree that conferences between Imperial ministers and overseas statesmen, the meeting together of these men and the exchange by them of opinions, each one learning how the science of government is worked out in other countries, all make for a good purpose, and I do not for a moment wish to be regarded as opposing a conference. On the contrary, I say that, from time to time, such conferences are exceedingly proper.
I do not hesitate to say, however, that from the point of view of Canada there is no question to-day which requires to be submitted to an Imperial Conference. Mr. Lloyd George may have some schemes over there which are referred to in recent press cablegrams. Mr. Lloyd George makes picturesque speeches, but they are not always followed up by anything practical. A good able man he undoubtedly is; but if Mr. Lloyd George has something to-day to propose over there, we want somebody to watch him. If Mr. Hughes, of Australia, if that gallant soldier-statesman from South Africa, General Smuts, has anything to propose, of course it is our duty to listen; but I take the responsibility of saying now that there is no question to-day before the Parliament of Canada which needs to be referred to any Imperial Conference.
Why, it sometimes happens when these conferences are held, when the members come together, that they wonder what in the world they are there for; and if you look over some of their proceedings you will be surprised how many resolutions have been passed which never amounted

to anything. They were academic resolutions; they never came to anything. The truth is that there is a body of people over in England, not a very numerous one, that I might describe as the "Grand Order of Fussers." They are talking about a new constitution to come before the Imperial Conference. They are always talking about what Canada wants, and about what Australia wants. Sir, Canada does not want anything. I say again there is no question pending to-day that this Parliament knows of-and we have a right to know if there is any question-there is no question which needs an Imperial Conference at all [DOT]-absolutely there is none.
We have one little question of importance in its way in regard to the cattle embargo. We think that the British Government are wrong in their attitude. We believe they are wrong, but we may as well let it go because, if we are maintaining the right to regulate our own trade and commerce, we are not going to claim the right to dictate to the British Government how to regulate their trade and commerce in their own way even if it does not happen to please us. But, apart from that question, no man in this House could tell us to-day what there is that requires an Imperial Conference so far as Canada is concerned.
Of course, if the conference is to be held, and if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister should still be in office in June, I think it is quite right that he should go; but he is not going to have a very happy time. If I am not mistaken, my right hon. friend will find himself in a curious position. Every other government representative at that conference will represent people who have expressed their views in recent years and since the war-I think that is correct. If that be the case, what will be the position of my right hon. friend? He is in the position that he does not represent the people of Canada. It is a weak position. He will be a lonely sparrow on the housetop, a solitary pelican in the wilderness. I should think it would be a humiliating position for my right hon. friend to occupy, and-one of my colleagues says-humiliating to the country. I do not mean for a moment to be understood as opposing a conference. I say again, conferences are needed from time to time. Conferences of men on trade and commerce are good things, and as a result of them men understand each other better. I would have Canada from time to time represented at a conference. But I do not hesitate to say

that for my right hon. friend to go over to England in June, with things as they now stand, and to undertake to represent Canada with the full knowledge that he possesses-because he is too intelligent a man to doubt the fact that he does not represent the people of Canada-is to place himself in a position that he ought not to occupy, a position that he will always regret.
We were told that we should support this Government because of the things they have done. I have spoken briefly of their general war record. I heard one hon. gentleman-I forget now who it was-speaking of the wonderful record of this Government-say, "Look, they have given votes to women." They did not. Looking back in my mind's eye to the elections of 1917, there are two households that I recall. One was a family of ladies who had votes. They had a son and a brother who had gone to the war, and it was right that they should have votes. But, close by, there was another home where there were three ladies who had.no brother to send to the war, but who were giving their days and their nights, and their money and their energy, to all the good works that the women of Canada were doing. They had no votes because the Government did not put them on the voters' list. Was that patriotism? Was that statesmanship? Ah! but it is said, they have given the votes now to women generally. No, they have only pretended to give them votes. They have put a provision in the statutes giving them the votes, but they will have to wait until 1922 before they get a chance to vote. No, the things which my hon. friends opposite describe as tributes to the Government's wonderful policy will not stand examination. The Government has outlived its usefulness, as has been contended by many hon. members.
There is only one point more I think I will speak upon, because I believe there are other hon. gentlemen who desire to express their views to-night. One of the things we are told this Government has done for which we should give them great honour is the abolition of patronage. Well, I am not going to deny the Government some share of credit for that matter. If any hon. gentlemen in this House are anxious to have the control of patronage again, I am not one of them. I am net complaining if I have not any patronage. I do not want it. It is better to be without it for many reasons. If the Government has abolished
patronage, I want to give them credit for it, but I must say this: No sooner do they agree to do these things than they begin to try and evade their own laws. I think it was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who described them of being guilty of infanticide-they were always killing their own babies.
Well, with all the cry they have made about abolishing patronage, what is the situation? The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is to-day claiming the right to exercise patronage to the extent of 15,000 officials in this Dominion. I had a letter from a man down in my county who had heard somewhere that the census officials were going to be appointed on the nomination of the members. I wrote him that I thought he was mistaken, but that I would inquire. So I inquired of the proper department. I thought: If this is going to be done by the Civil Service Commission I am not going to complain; but if it is not going to be done by the Civil Service Commission, perhaps it will be well for me to ask if the members irrespective of politics are to make the recommendations. The assurance I got from the official authority is that they have gone back to the old patronage game; they are going to appoint the census officials on the nomination and recommendation of members supporting the Government. That is patronage. Why, Sir, in almost every claim the Government set up we discover that while they are making great professions of virtuous policy they do not live up to them.
For all these reasons I say the position taken by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this amendment is the correct one. This Government have no longer a mandate to conduct the affairs of the country; they have no longer any right to believe that they have the confidence of the people of Canada.


Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow the very good example set by a number of the preceding speakers and extend my sincere congratulations to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) on his accession to the very high office that he now occupies. I can remember in 1909, I think it was, when I first heard him speak as a young man, at that time a private member, I predicted that he would go far; that prediction has been realized. I further predict that if he desires to remain in public life he will always fill a very prominent position.

We have now a brand new Government with a brand new name and-I say it with all respect-a brand new Prime Minister. But, Sir, we find that they have a very old policy. I would have thought that a new government in such a new country as this, where conditions are changing, might to some extent modernize their policy. However, I will quote a passage from the speech of His Excellency, delivered as the mouthpiece of this Government. He said:
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision-
Speaking of the tariff.
-regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. There is so much conversation on the floor of this Chamber as well as in other parts thereof that it is absolutely impossible for the Speaker even to follow the hon. member who is now addressing the House. I must ask hon. members and others to refrain from talking.


Thomas MacNutt: I was quoting a part of the speech of His Excellency regarding the tariff. It reads:
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must he had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained:
That is a very old policy-as old as the country. I am afraid that I cannot support it. At the same time I commend the Government for their frankness in stating exactly where they stand on the tariff. It is another story with regard to what we call the official Opposition. It is very difficult to say where they do stand with regard to the tariff. Liberalism, as I have always understood it, meant "no special favours," which are conveyed, of course, under protection. But from the expressions of prominent Liberals in public and private and their attitude generally, we have come to the conclusion that a majority of them do not stand upon their own fiscal platform. And it is a very good platform in some respects.
It has been claimed that this little group here, which I believe sincerely stands for free trade in many respects, for instance, in regard to tools and implements that are used in developing natural resources, free food, and so on, and a low tariff in other respects-it has been claimed, I say, that this little group should affiliate politically with the present Liberal party; but as long
[Mr. MacNutt. [
as there is that distrust amongst our group -I can speak for myself and, I think, for the rest of my colleagues-there is not very much chance that there will be any such fusion. Recent by-elections have shown that we are not very likely to fuse. And, besides, a great deal of evidence has been brought forward to show that there is more than a doubt as to where the Liberal party as a whole stands on the tariff. In support of this assertion I wish to quote some newspaper reports of statements claimed to have been made by prominent Liberals. This is the first report:
The recent speech by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux at Ste. Martine, Chateauguay county, has attracted considerable attention in the East. In this address Mr. Lemieux said: "It is possible that in the West Liberals think that we should have a policy of free trade. It may be that in the West and in other provinces it is said that all duties should he abolished. It is necessary to have commonsense. Protection is necessary, moderate protection,-
I have never been able to find out what is meant by "moderate" protection. It occurs to me that this word is in the same class as the word "adequate" which was formerly used in the old Halifax platform of the Conservative party. It is altogether a matter of opinion that constitutes moderate protection.
-and equitably distributed with justice for the producer and consumer."
La Patrie, of Montreal, makes this comment on Mr. Lemieux's deliverance:
Following the example of other members of his party, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, at a public meeting at Chateauguay set himself out to destroy the impression that the Liberal party supports free trade. Briefly, but clearly, he formulated his policy as being one for moderate protection. One of the principal questions which the electors will be called upon to decide by their vote in the next general election will be that of tariff reform. It is true that on that question the Agrarian element, especially in the West, holds extreme views in favour of a radical reduction of the tariff, as a preliminary to its complete abolition. But in the speeches of the party leaders, ministerial and Liberal alike, nobody can discern exactly where their policy differs on this question. The Liberals who are responsible for the direction of their party evidently will not compromise themselves. They are obliged to acknowledge the imperiousness of the motives which compel the Federal administration to maintain a protective tariff.
At a dinner in Quebec addressed by the Hon. J. A. Caron, Minister of Agriculture in the Quebec Government the principal guests were the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) The following is a summary of some of the remarks made by Mr. Caron who is a pronounced Liberal and leader in the province:

Mr. Caron had at his right throughout the luncheon Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, leader of the Liberal Opposition, and on his left, separated from him only by C. A. Magrath, the chairman, Premier Meighen. The address was refreshingly frank, the speaker declaring in preface of his political observations that the best thing for him to do was "to tell the truth." He opened his address by referring to the importance of agriculture in the Dominion and by outlining the means taken by his province to further that basic industry. He intimated, however, that manufacturing was rapidly increasing in his province, declared flatly that there were no free traders in Quebec."
An extract from a report of the meeting of the Tariff Commission at Three Rivers, Quebec, is as follows:-
The local Board of Trade, represented by-Mr. Burrill, its president, registered in favor of a protective tariff as the best means to protect Canadian industries. Eugene Tremblay, in the name of the employees of the Wabasco Cotton Company, of Three Rivers, said that any reduction of the tariff would be prejudicial to their company and consequently prejudicial to the employees of this company. He favours the maintenance of the present tariff law. The directors of the Shawinigan Cotton Company said that the textile industry had no actual protection on account of the depreciation of the pound sterling, and they ask for a more severe tariff.
Well, Sir, I was wondering what the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) a very prominent Liberal sitting on this side of the House, thinks of the views of a number of his prominent constituents.
There is no use, Sir, in going over the ground that has been travelled so much. I simply wish to give a few reasons for voting as I shall to-night, I wish also to say a few words with regard to a matter in which we are all interested, the welfare of the returned soldiers. This is a matter which we cannot allow to become stale. I am going to say a few words in connection with the settlement of soldiers on the land in the West-in fact, all over Canada. I believed in that plan; I believe in it yet, although I have sometimes criticised its local administration. [DOT] Conditions have changed very much lately and I think there should be a review of the situation to some extent. The report of the Board is a very favourable one; it goes to show that to a large extent the plan has been successful. I wish to read the following summary of it:
The loans granted to date total $S0,302,649 ; the amount of land taken up, 3,371,000 acres; estimated saving to the soldiers on the purchase of land, $2,700,000 ; and the area of new land broken in the West, 202,730 acres.
A summary of the operations of the Soldier Settlement Board up to November 30, 1920, is given as follows:
Number of veterans in communication with Board, 100,000; number applied for privileges of Act, 58,811; number accepted as qualified to farm, 41,906; number qualified but not yet located, 21,975 ; number in training under supervision of Board, 916; number completed training, 1,144. Total number of loans, 19,931; total amount, $80,302,649.
These loans were distributed over the different provinces as follows: Prince Edward Island, 302; Nova Scotia, 397; New Brunswick, 511; Quebec, 455; Ontario. 1,405; Manitoba, 3,297; Saskatchewan, 4,893; Alberta, 5,727; British Columbia, 2,944. The amount of loans disbursed was $70,281,872; initial payments on land purchased, $3,672,638; number liable for repayments November first, 12,507; number who made repayments, 7,470, or 59 per cent; amount due, $2,334,174; amount repaid, $1,369,256, or 58 per cent. Now that was a very fair showing. I do not know to what particular provinces this percentage relates, but I want you to notice that 41 per cent did not make even the small payment required under the Act. Further, it is not stated whether the repayments were made in full or not. In fact, I know that a number of them were not made in full. The following are some further figures with regard to this land settlement plan.
Number who have repaid loans in full, 291; number of failures and changes of ownership adjusted, 166; amount invested in these farms, $620,869 ; amount realized in re-sale of farm and equipment (showing average loss of $38 per farm), $614,548. Stock and equipment purchased for soldier settlers, $22,619,759 ; saving to settlers through special arrangements with dealers, $742,568.
A great number of these settlers have so far appeared to have done well. All will congratulate the Board upon handling the matter as well as possible, and the men themselves are also to be congratulated. But, I keep pretty much in touch with these matters and I know that a great many of the returned men have not done very well, through no fault of their own. I will mention some of the reasons. All that they purchased was bought at a time when prices were at the peak. In my locality, on account of the spring being late, a great many of the men did not put in much wheat. They sowed principally oat3 and barley for which they had to pay one dollar or $1.10 a bushel. In some cases they got it from the Board; in some cases they used their own money and on other occasions they got it on time. They even had to pay one dollar a bushel for oats for feed. This fall, as soon as threshing was well advanced, they could not get more than



thirty to forty-five cents a bushel or thereabouts for their oats and from sixty to seventy-five cents for their barley, although they had to pay up to two dollars a bushel for the seed. The same applied to other items; cows that cost $100 a year ago, and were considered good value at that, could now be purchased for $35 to $40. Expenses, however, went on as usual. Many settlers had no capital of their own; they did not get all that they required from the Board and had to borrow privately to pay their ten per cent deposits. Some of them had to run into debt in the purchase of implements and supplies.
I do not want to make a poor mouth on behalf of the soldiers; I do not think they would want me to do that, but I want to set some of these matters before the House. I feel quite satisfied that some consideration should be given to them, not simply by way of deferring payments and allowing them to be heaped up so that one crop has to pay for two or three years' payments, but by way of advancing the total payment, in cases where necessary, a couple of years without interest. I think the country can well afford to pay the interest on the amounts advanced to soldiers in this position, just as well or a little better than they can to pay large deficits, for the Canadian National Railway. We cannot afford to neglect our men. Had prices been maintained, there would have been no complaints about the matter. I know, however, of as little as 15 cents a bushel having been paid for oats raised by soldier settlers. Those oats, when they were threshed, had probably got a little snow in them and would have been called tough, but they should have been worth more than that. The previous spring oats could not have been bought, snow and all, for less than 80 or 90 cents a bushel. It must be remembered that the soldiers have to maintain their families. They must also get good stock, and many of those who have settled on the land have not good stock, although that is not the fault of the Government and it is not their fault. Some of the conditions, however, could have been controlled. I do not think the condition of the soldiers was improved very much by the Railway Commission raising the freight rates for the railway companies, and had the Wheat Board been kept in existence, I think the soldier settlers might have done a little better. I do not, however, want to dwell on that; I just want to speak of things as I find them.
[Mr. MacNutt. I
At a meeting of returned men held in my constituency about a month ago, I was present, and I was asked to make a few suggestions to the House. The first one was to post-date the contracts from two to three years including stock and implements, that is, in cases where such action was necessary, the supervisor, in all cases, to use his own judgment. Another suggestion was that the soldier settlers be allowed a refund of the 10 per cent deposit, if suitable improvements were made to cover, the supervisor in all cases to advise. It will be understood that the soldier settler must put up 10 per cent of the money required to pay for his land. For example, if the land costs $4,000, he is required to put up $400 and he is charged for $3,600. The Government, having received this $400 from him might, when required, advance it to him again providing that the loan is covered by increased value by way of improvements in the land. An additional loan was also asked to cover the erection of a machine shed. I was further asked to bring before the House the advisability of making loans for housing in towns and villages to returned men, who were not farmers, and I can see no reason why this matter should not be handled in the same way as in the case of men going on the land. It was also considered only just that a man who voluntarily enlisted, and who, although discharged as unfit, was otherwise qualified, should be eligible for land settlement.
One case amongst others was cited, and I will use this as an example. A returned man enlisted on April 4, 1916, at Winnipeg, and he was discharged medically unfit on May 30, 1917, at Winnipeg, over a year afterwards. He does not receive a pension, but if he desires to take up land under the system, I think he should be more eligible than a drafted man with a pension. Conditions are entirely different from what they were a year ago; men can be outfitted for one-half the price and the chances are that they could make the thing go.
Amongst other things, many soldiers have to contend with the matter of exchange, inasmuch as the land that they occupy was acquired from owners in the United States. In some cases the loans would not stand the exchange and the deal was called off. In other cases, the settlers have had to pay the additional amount of perhaps $400 or $500 in order to close the transaction, and it is matters like these that militate against the success of the soldier. I am sure the House

will be as pleased to know as I was that, at the meeting that I spoke of and at others, I was told that those present utterly repudiated the arrangements proposed hy Sergeant Harry Flynn and would have nothing to do with them. They are not anxious to endorse anything that he has endeavoured to do, supposedly in their interest.
I presume a committee will be appointed as heretofore to deal with the problems of the returned soldiers, and I trust that they will consider the suggestions I have placed on Hansard. I have other suggestions which I could give in detail before that committee, and I have no doubt that consideration will be given to them, because I am satisfied that every hon. member of this House is anxious to see the returned men properly dealt with. The returned soldiers do not want anything in the way of charity or over-paternalism, but they want conditions to be taken into consideration and they ask that, as a matter of business they should be assisted by being granted a further extension of time without interest, say for the first couple of years, in cases where that is found to be absolutely essential Otherwise they will simply lose heart and throw up the game. If they do so, the country will lose a great deal more financially, and the calculations previously made will be upset.
Something is to be said in favour of the amendment to the amendment, but I do not think it is practicable. The amendment itself is, I think, rather unfortunately worded, but it is my intention to support it. I do not like to speak in such harsh terms, namely, that I have no confidence whatever in the Government; hut speaking politically, I have no confidence in their policy, especially in that policy which was set forth in the speech from the Throne, and consequently, I propose voting against the subamendment and for the amendment.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester) :: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne and on the amendment and sub-amendment has now lasted since the 15th of February. In the first days of the debate the Government supporters would get up and answer in succession the speeches delivered from this side of the House, but for reasons which I do not know for the last three days the Government has heen practically silent, and the only speech which has been heard from your right, Sir, has been the one delivered hy the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), who also holds in this Government the position of Solicitor General for Canada. The Solicitor General for Canada, as a rule, and according to law, is a lawyer, and a lawyer of some eminence. The Minister of Militia and Defence, according to custom, if not according to law, is a soldier. Now it was peculiar-it was extraordinary-that, when the hon. gentleman who represents South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stood up in this House to explain the position taken by the Government on this question, instead of speaking as a lawyer, and as the Solicitor General, when the question before us is a question of law, and solely of law, he should put aside his gown, and don a uniform and speak as a soldier. He rode rough-shod over our constitution, and he did not forget, in the course of his remarks, to put his spurs through certain parts of it. Such a speech coming from a lawyer was so surprising that it struck the Government dumb, and since then nobody has stood up on that side of the House.
The hon. gentleman made a statement that,
I humbly submit, is not according to the facts. He declared that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was the choice of his party. I do not intend to reflect in any way upon the character of the Prime Minister of this country, but I wish to discuss the choice of the leader of the Government simply and solely from the political viewpoint. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the choice of the leader of the Government was not the choice of his party. When the right hon. gentleman, who was Premier of Canada from 1911 to 1920, resigned, the party which he had left turned their eyes not towards the present leader but towards Toronto, towards the former member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White). The member for Leeds, or the former mem ber for Leeds, came to Ottawa, but with his shrewdness and ability apprehended the situation aright and declined the position. When the first choice could not be made, the second choice of the party was my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I have nothing but complimentary things to say of this gentleman. The part he has taken in the debates in this House has shown that he wishes always to do his best for his country. The hon. gentleman is not a politician. He is a business man, and being . a business man, and having lots of capacity as such, he also declined to become the leader of a moribund party. But the party

[DOT]was not discouraged. They turned to one of the old war horses who had led the party many a time on the battlefield. They turned their eyes to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) but as you Jcnow, 'Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had very wisely taken other responsibilities, and he also declined. Then something extraordinary happened. The party turned, I understand, to the province of Quebec for a Prime Minister, to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), but if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was offered the position for some reason which is unknown to me, he also declined the post of leader, but readily accepted the honour of being the first man sworn into the new cabinet. The papers then, but for a very brief time, rightly or wrongly reported that in despair there was a possibility of putting the responsibilities of leadership upon the shoulders of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). But the very moment the matter was mentioned in the papers, the party had to change their choice, and direct their efforts to secure a new leader into another channel. Finally, the country heard that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government to-day was the choice of the new party.
The right hon. gentleman has great ability. Nobody denies that, but his choice, from a political and national standpoint, is a real danger to our country. This gentleman, Mr. Speaker, represents a policy of ultra-partisanship. Many years ago, in the year 1912 if I am not mistaken, when the late leader of our party, the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier rose in this House to defend the rights of Canada and safeguard our autonomy, the man who rose in his place to take away the word from the dying lips of our leader was the hon. member for Portage La Prairie, the present Prime Minister. Not only does the Prime Minister of Canada represent ultra partisanship, but he represents ultra-imperialism. He has always been the mouthpiece in this House of those who wish to put aside the interests of Canada whenever the interests of the Empire are at stake. He is the gentleman who declared in this House and also throughout the country that Canada, whenever England was at war, should spend her last dollar and give her last man.
The Prime Minister of to-day is not only a partizan, but he is an ultra-imperialist; I go further and say that he is the greatest

Tory of all the Tories in Canada. He is the author of those laws that stand on our Statute Book as a blot on the constitutional liberties which we enjoy in this country. Who is the author of the War Measures Act? Who is the author of the War-time Elections Act? Who is the author of the Military Service Act? In a word, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman has entered the political field in Canada, he has always shown himself to be the representative of the most Tory traditions which we have in this country. But if his leadership is dangerous from a national viewpoint, in view of his antecedents in this House, it is more dangerous even in view of what this Government intend to do if the present Prime Minister retains office.
The right hon. gentleman has inaugurated a railway policy which is absolutely nefarious in the interest of Canada. He became the sponsor of the Canadian Northern Bill; he was the father of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill; and he was the defender of the Grand Trunk Bill. To-day, not satisfied with having been the representative of MacKenzie and Mann in this House and in the country as well, the Prime Minister and his Government wish to become the representatives of the Big interests and to inaugurate a policy of high protection. I say, Sir, that I am not judging the Prime Minister from a personal viewpoint, but solely from his political antecedents; I am judging him also from his present political declarations. His leadership is dangerous, and the sooner it is terminated the better, in the interests of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question which is before the House is after all a very simple one. It is this: Has this Government a mandate to further govern Canada? And, secondly, has this Government the confidence of the people of Canada? I intend briefly to discuss these two questions. As to the first-has the Government a mandate to further govern Canada?-that question is one of great importance and moment. It is important for us to know whether responsible government in Canada shall be maintained. Any student of constitutional history is aware of the struggle, the long and bitter struggle, that was fought in England in order to obtain responsible government, and before the principle of constitutional and responsible government was recognized, the head of Charles I had to fall. In Canada, we have also had a

struggle. That struggle lasted from 1828 to 1847, and the names of the leading actors in it who led the fight to secure for us liberties and the freedom which we enjoy are the names of those most held in honour by every patriot in our country. Is this government to be permitted to rob us of those privileges? Is it to be permitted to abolish the prerogatives won after such a hard struggle? That is really the question which is before the House.
The Liberal principle, as expounded by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), has always been the same; it has never varied, and that principle is that the Government should remain in power not merely so long as it is supported by a majority of the House of Commons, but so long, and only so long, as that majority in the Commons is an exact reflection of the opinion in the country at large. The Tory theory is altogether different. That theory in substance is that a government has the right to remain in power, notwithstanding the will and the desire of the people, so long as it can manage to muster on a division sufficient votes to secure a majority, no matter how slim that majority may be. That Tory principle has been put into practice not only by this Government but by the Administration .of the late Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) since 1911. Since 1911, has the Government conducted affairs in accordance with the mandate given by the electorate of Canada? I answer that question unhesitatingly, Mr. Speaker. I say that the Government of 1911, the Government of 1917, and the Government of 1920, have none of them ever conducted the affairs of this country according to the mandate given by the people.
In 1911 an appeal was made to the electors of Canada by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it was met in Ontario and in other provinces by the allegation that the Laurier administration was endangering the British Empire and that it was time for Canada to save itself from dismemberment from the Empire. In our province of Quebec it was stated by the Nationalists that Canada had no obligation towards the Mother Country, and that it was time she should secede from the Empire if remaining in it meant further obligations. The appeal to the prejudices of the people carried the other provinces; the appeal to sectarian nationalism carried to a certain extent the province of Quebec; and the party led by the late Prime Minister, who had received a
mandate from the English Provinces never to forget our obligations towards the British Empire, the day after the election was over, turned round and made an alliance with the Nationalists of Quebec. Since that alliance was formed, never has the Government which was originally elected in 1911, carried on any policy in keeping with the promises made to the electorate of the English provinces nor, on the other hand, in fulfillment of the pledges given to the electors of Quebec.
In 1916, the Government applied for an extension of the parliamentary term, and that extension was granted provided that during the additional period no legislation of a controversial character should be introduced. A mandate was given by Parliament to the then Government. How was that mandate respected? The Government respected it by first introducing conscription when the Prime Minister had expressly promised that there would not be conscription in Canada. Secondly, the Government respected it by bringing in the War-times Election Act; and thirdly, the Government respected it by taking advantage of this opportunity to form a Union Government. In 1917 the Union Government was formed and an appeal made to the country. This appeal was based solely and exclusively on one question, the carrying on of the war. The Prime Minister declared to the electors of Canada, and his ministers made the same declaration, that the Government was for one purpose, the carrying on of the war, and that the moment the war was over the Government would consider that its mandate had expired. The elections were won by means and by methods which are well known to the people of Canada. The Government carried the day, but what did it do? In 1918 the war was over but did the Government resign? Not only did the Government not resign but despite a promise to the electors not to bring in during the war period, or during the period of its existence, any domestic question which could be controverted, it introduced the railway policy upon which the people of Canada had never been consulted. Further, the Government now wishes to introduce redistribution, although it has absolutely no mandate. Nay, it wishes to proceed further by sending representatives to attend the Imperial Conference in London and make decisions binding Canada, when the representatives who are to sit in London have absolutely no mandate from Canada, and absolutely no authority to speak for this country.

As to whether this Government has a mandate or not I will only say this: In 1917 the Administration called the Union Government was elected. Where is that Government to-day? It has disappeared. In 1917, during the war, the then Prime Minister led the Government forces in the electoral struggle, and the Union Government carried the elections. Where is that leader to-day? He has resigned. In 1917 a programme was submitted to the electorate of Canada. Where is that programme to-day? Mr. Speaker, that programme has been cast aside and a new programme has been propounded. In 1917, Mr. Speaker, a special franchise was passed, and nearly every member in this House sits as a member elected under the provisions of that franchise. Where is that franchise to-day? That franchise which gives life and existence and legal authority to this Parliament to sit has been taken out of our statutes, and the reasons why are well known to the people of this country. Not only has the Government disappeared, not only has the programme disappeared, not only has the leader disappeared, not only has the franchise disappeared, but even the issues have disappeared out of our public life.
To-day there remains absolutely nothing in this Praliament connected with the elections of 1917, but the fourteen members who were elected by the provisions of the War-time Elections Act when they were defeated by the electors of their constituencies. Mr. Speaker, this is true. There is not one man on the Government side that can deny the truth of what I have just affirmed. Nevertheless, this Government clings to office; this Government refuses to go before the people; this Government refuses to give to the electors of Canada the chance to decide who shall have the direction of public affairs. I have studied the history of England, I have studied the history of my own country, I have studied the history of the United States-nowhere in any of these countries do I find a single example of action on the part of a government which is to he compared with the action of the Government of Canada to-day. Only one precedent, Mr. Speaker, may be found and that precedent is to be found in the most unhappy and unfortunate period in English history-I	refer
to the period in England from 1640 to 1660. In those days there was a Parliament, a Parliament which was elected at first in a moment of public enthusiasm, as was the present Parliament. But it had outlived its usefulness. Al-

though the people of England did not want that Parliament, it nevertheless persisted in remaining. It was called the "Rump Parliament" and I think the only proper appellation for the present Parliament would be the same title. The Rump Parliament had to be thrown out by a Cromwell. Will this Government wait until a Cromwell throws it out? I think the Government should be careful; the people of Canada have been patient. The people have displayed lots of forbearance, but the patience of the public like the patience of the individual has its limits. The Government has overstayed its usefulness, the Government should disappear.
Another question is as to whether this Government has the confidence of the people of Canada. I do not wish to discuss this point at great length, former speakers have discussed it much more ably than I can do; but I desire to recall to your memory, Mr. Speaker, that
12 p.m. since 1918, if I am not mistaken, fourteen elections have been held and out of that number ten have gone against the Government. I do not wish to further discuss the meaning or the significance of the result in Peterborough. I simply wish to say that the electors of Peterborough voted in such a way as to give to this Government an imperative order to quit office. Peterborough has spoken in a most emphatic and unambiguous manner, and I hope the Government will at least understand the desires of the people as expressed by the electors of that constituency. It has been said that this Government is too weak. The Government knows that it has not the confidence of the people, and although its weakness is known to its own members, although the Prime Minister knows and acknowledges that his Cabinet should be reconstructed, he does not dare to do it. Why does he not? Because the Prime Minister knows that should the new ministers go to the country they probably would not be returned.
The situation is most unfair. I see opposite to me the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid). This hon. gentleman has been working very hard for his country; he has been in office since 1911. Very often during our prolonged debates I see the hon. gentleman turning yearning eyes towards the Senate Chamber. Is it not time, Mr. Speaker, that he should have his rest? On the Government benches I also see my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), for whom

I have great respect. He, too, has worked arduously for his country. Very often, I am sure, he thinks what a beautiful and restful place the Supreme Court would be in the evening of his life. Why should not the Prime Minister send him to the Supreme Court? And behind these hon. gentlemen I see the younger members who are eager to supplant their elders. I see, for instance, my hon. friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). He is full of energy, he is full of activity, he is full of zeal. Why should not the Prime Minister give the hon. gentleman a chance to exert himself even more than he is doing now in the public interest? And, Mr. Speaker, what about the devoted Chief Whip (Mr. Middleboro) on the Government side? Many a night has he worked mustering the Government forces, many a time has he stood at the door to see that the stragglers came in and that those who were in did not go out. The time has come for his reward. If these old servants of the public do not get their reward, and if the young bloods like the member for Fort William and the very devoted Chief Whip do not get Cabinet portfolios in these days, it is because the Government knows its own weaknesses and does not dare to face a by-election anywhere.
For the last year there has been discussion in this House and in the press as to the situation of the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec in 1917 was a traitor. The province of Quebec in 1917 was compared to a province where open rebellion existed. No appeal to prejudice was strong enough against our province and against our people. These appeals to prejudice had their results-the Government carried the general election in that year. But if the Government carried the election, it lost any sympathy that it might have possessed in my native province. The war is now over. The big interests are appealing to this Government for high protection. The Government knows that the rest of Canada is opposed to protection. The Government knows that sentiment in Ontario is antagonistic to that policy. The Government wished to have new allies, and although, Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised, the Government turned their eyes upon this very province, inhabited by traitors, to find these new allies7 to find this new blood which will give them new life. The press of Canada, which is heavily subsidized by the Government, as we all know, has published articles declaring that nothing is too good for Quebec, that Quebec
is the sanest province in the Dominion. Quebec is being cajoled. We are told every day that we represent the best traditions of Canada and the highest Canadian aspirations. But the frantic efforts of the Government have had as yet no results but one, and that result has been very meagre for such great efforts-it has been the speech delivered in this House by my hon. friend the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier). It is with great regret that I have mentioned my hon. friend. In my native province we have fought many a battle side by side in favour of the principles which the Liberal party represent. My associations with the hon. member have always been of a very friendly character, and when I saw him rising to his feet, and when I heard the speech which he delivered, I can say that the feeling I had, Mr. Speaker, was a feeling of heartfelt sympathy and sadness.
In 1917 when I waged in my province a fight for Canadian autonomy, for Canadian spirit, for Canadian nationhood, when I ran against the former Minister of Inland Revenue, the Hon. Mr. Sevigny, one of the speakers during that campaign who enunciated the most Canadian of Canadian sentiments was the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe. The days have passed; I have remained what I was then, he has chosen to change. I am sorry for him, and, as a friend, I regret, and sincerely regret, the attitude which he has taken. Putting aside my personal sentiments and feelings towards the hon. member, I may say that when in this House he delivered his speech, we witnessed what is called in Japan hari-kari, or self execution. The hon. gentleman has chosen to hang himself publicly in this new Chamber. His corpse is now swinging. It is swinging on Parliament Hill, and may that swinging political corpse and the stench which it exhales be a lesson to anybody, the Prime Minister or any one else, who has an inclination to follow his example.
The attitude of my hon. friends towards our province is an attitude of promise, an attitude of flattery. But the papers of Montreal, particularly the Montreal Gazette, have announced Jthat the Government, unless Quebec yields to their demands, will assume another attitude. That attitude would be a threatening one; to use their own expression, the Government would open a "barrage fire" upon Quebec. Their fire we are awaiting without fear. Mr. Speaker. Unyielding to promises, we shall

not bend to fear. We represent in this House an indignant province which has been insulted, and never will our province give in to the Government until a fitting apology is forthcoming from public men in this country for the crime committed against Quebec.
Their barrage fire has already been opened, by a gentleman, who claims to represent his province in the Cabinet, the hon. Mr. Blondin, Postmaster General of Canada. Represents the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker? He no more represents Quebec than I could claim to represent New Zealand in this House; he no more represents Quebec than I represent or claim or wish to represent the city of Toronto. Mr. Blondin is an outcast from our province. In 1917, having betrayed the most sacred interests of our province, he has come amongst his own people and to use the words of the gospel, he has "passed amongst them and has not been recognized." In some place the hon. gentleman has chosen to declare that never has he uttered disloyal words in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman has a very short memory. In 1910 during the election in Drummond and Arthabaska, on the same platform where I was discussing public affairs with him, in the parishes of Maddington Falls and St. Louis de Bland-ford, the present Postmaster General of Canada shot holes through the British flag. In the election of 1917 in my own constituency the hon. gentleman said to the people of St. Rose de Watford: "What does conscription matter to you gentlemen? You are close to the American border; should conscription be enacted you can escape over tne border to the United States." If the Government wishes to retain the Postmaster General as one of its members it is free to do so, but I ask the leader of the Government, if he lets Mr. Blondin remain in the Cabinet, not to let him call himself the representative of Quebec. Another gentleman has opened a barrage fire on our province, and that gentleman is the hon. Mr. Robertson. The hon. gentleman in another place-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member cannot escape the well-known rule by making a veiled reference to a debate in the Upper Chamber by saying that it occurred in "another place." I think he would be well advised to adhere to old parliamentary traditions and not refer to hon. gentlemen in the other Chamber in terms of disrespect.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to refer to any other hon. gentleman in terms of disrespect. I simply wish to direct the attention of the House to certain statements by ministers or members of the Government, bearing on questions before the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The' hon. gentleman would not be in order in doing so if the statements to which he refers were made in the other House of Parliament. That rule is well known.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I was under the impression that the rule was to the effect that we had no right in the House of Commons to quote from speeches delivered in the other Chamber, but that hon. members were perfectly free to discuss declarations of members of the Government as connected with Government responsibility and as connected with the attitude of the Government on public matters.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman would be perfectly in order in doing so if they were matters of record, but if he starts to traverse a speech made by an hon. member of the other House, he is not in order.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I have
read in the press that hon. members of this Government have started an attack upon our province, describing the condition of Quebec in 1917 as having been worse than that which exists in Russia. Any member of the Government who so represents the conditions in my native province in 1917 is not stating the real condition of things. When the Military Service Act was being put into force in 1917 the greatest agitation existed in the province of Quebec. The then Minister of Militia came to the city of Quebec, and the reception accorded to him at that time showed that if the people of that province were firm and solid in their principles and convictions, they also knew how to respect the laws of their country. It was represented by members of the Government that houses were burned and that dynamite was used. I say that the only dynamite used in Quebec in 1917 was dynamite bought with Government money and used by Government agents as Was done in Montreal.
The hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) during the course of his speech in this debate, referred to the Liberal party on this side as being the remnant of a party. So far as we in this House from

Quebec are concerned, we represent those who in the greatest struggle ever fought by Sir Wilfrid Laurier remained firm, solid and loyal to Liberal principles. In this political fight of 1917, young and old members from Quebec were like the soldiers who had fought many battles under the guidance and direction of the great Napoleon. When the time and the hour of defeat came on the field of Waterloo, although the old guard was not numerous, in the face of obvious defeat those soldiers remembered the glories of former victories through their leader and protected him. When an English general, addressing those soldiers, and assuming the same attitude as the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) did the other day, called on the old guard to surrender, that English general was answered by the sublime word which has immortalized Cambronne, and I say that the province of Quebec, answering the request of the Government, uses that same sublime and immortal word.
The province of Quebec will hold in Canada the balance of power at the next election. No government can carry on the business of this country without the support of the province of Quebec, and the members from Quebec will see to it that never again in the history of Canada, if we can prevent it, will a government be given the power of the strength to try to crucify a whole race and a whole province. Our forefathers came to Canada as the pioneers of civilization; we love our province as we love our mother; we love the vastness of its forests; we love the romance and the grandeur of its rivers; we love the beauty and the picturesqueness of its landscape; Quebec is our mother; Quebec has been insulted, and it is useless for any member in this House to ask us to forget. We shall not forget.
Any man who states that Quebec can be disregarded in Canada's affairs is a man who shows his ignorance of Canadian history. Canada has been built up by the combined efforts of the great men of the other provinces, and of the great men of Quebec. No matter how far you go back in history, always amongst the most prominent workers for the grandeur and advancement of Canada, you will find French Canadian statesmen and politicians from Quebec. Who wanted constitutional government for Canada? The French Canadian statesmen who sat in the Legislative Assembly in 1791. Who carried to the battlefield the cry of responsible government? Who shed their blood for that principle?
The French Canadian heroes of 1837, who, under the Union government obtained from England a full acknowledgment of responsible government-Lafontaine and Baldwin. Who rendered possible Confederation in Canada? Sir George Etienne Cartier. Who consummated Confederation and made of the nine provinces in Canada a nation united? Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is needless to try to cast aside the French Canadian race in this country. We are the pioneer race and we intend to remain so. We have done things in the past; we are doing things in the present; we expect to achieve even greater things in the future, and intelligent statesmen, instead of trying to threaten Quebec, should try to conciliate Quebec.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) :: Mr. Speaker, in making my contribution to this debate, I wish to follow the time-honoured custom of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address on the able manner in which they have acquitted themselves, and I also wish to join with them in extending congratulations to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who has attained to the high position of Prime Minister of our country.
I intend that my remarks shall be brief. Since becoming a member of this House, the thought has often occurred to me that a large portion of many of the speeches, which are devoted to calling down the opposing party or parties, might very well be either cut out altogether, or the same effort applied to something constructive for the country's weal. It has been said that one of man's greatest advantages over the brute creation is the gift of language with which to conceal his thoughts, and, Sir, one is sometimes forced to wonder what the real thought behind some of the statements made in this debate might be. Consequently, Sir, I will be as concise as possible and as plain as possible.
In congratulating the leader of the Government, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not agree with some of the policies laid down by his party, and that I emphatically disagree with the policy of protection as outlined by that party and embodied in the speech from the Throne. This being the case, I could hardly be expected to vote for the motion unless I swallowed my convictions, which I have no intention of doing, and yet the amendment as it stands does not comply with the thought uppermost in my mind in regard to the present situation. But I feel forced

to follow the old advice that of two evils, or possibly, I might say in this case, of three evils, choose the least. Consequently, I will support the amendment. In doing so, I am fully aware of what the consequences may be, but I have no hesitation in telling the members of the Government that the situation has been created by them, and on them the verdict will fall.
In all fairness there is one thing I wish to give my right hon. friend the leader of the Government credit for, while he filled the portfolio of Minister of the Interior, and that is the establishment of the Soldiers' Settlement Board, and the placing of thousands of returned men on the land. The hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) has given the figures relating to the whole Dominion, and has made a plea for generous treatment of the returned men. I heartily endorse his sentiments in that respect, and I should like to give some figures particularly of the work done by the Board through the office at Prince Albert. The constituency of Prince Albert to-day has many soldier settlers who are making good in comfortable homes, and who are owners of fertile farms. These men are located not only in the district tributary to the city of Prince Albert, but you will find them all the way through the famous Carrot River valley right to the Manitoba boundary. Undoubtedly some are heavily encumbered, but taken broadly, the scheme has been a success both from the point of view, of the re-establishment of the returned soldier, and that of land settlement and increased production. The office at Prince Albert reports 1,200 established settlers, with only some fifty adjustments, leaving 1,150 soldier settlers in actual residence, occupying in all 265,000 acres, and producing last season over 450,000 bushels of grain. Of these settlers 538 are married men; 164 of the wives are overseas brides, and there were at that time 1,002 children. So, Mr. Speaker, you will readily see that the element of increased production has not been overlooked.
Education has been handicapped in the settlement which was formed in that portion of the Porcupine Forest Reserve which was opened for soldier entry. Owing to the fact that the Government retained title to the land, debentures for the purpose of erecting schools could not be sold, and a condition exists there which should not be allowed. There are over one hundred children in this settlement, over sixty of whom are of school age but there is no school. Let me say in passing that in my opinion there is nothing the Government or
[Mr. Knox. [
this House can do for the returned man that would repay him for the sacrifices he made during the war, and when we find men who, after all the turmoil and upsetting experiences which they have undergone, are ready and willing to settle down on the land, or willing to qualify for the benefits of the Act, surely it is up to us to give them all the assistance and encouragement in our power.
But the one big want most keenly felt is the lack of transportation facilities. Some of these settlers are tremendously handicapped for lack of railways, but no worse than the civilian settlers who surround them. An extract from the report reads as follows:
Transportation facilities north of Tisdale and north of Prince Albert are poor, and a railway-operated at an early date would be of untold benefit to these areas. A line from Turtleford to Shellbrook would open up a very fine tract of country. The centre of this district is fifty miles from railway facilities, yet settlers are favourably reported upon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I most strongly urge upon the Government and upon this House the support of any scheme whereby these people may get the necessary assistance in connecting them up with the outside market. I believe the whole West has a grievance in regard to the heavy freight rates, but the high rates of transportation, individually, sinks into insignificance in comparison with the situation of those people who have no transportation at all.
I would like to say a word about the freight rates. In the West our lines of railway are much more easily and cheaply constructed, and with long unbroken hauls in bulk lots, much more easily and cheaply operated than similar lines in the East. You will easily see that both the producer who has to ship his products over thousands of miles to eastern markets, or what is more likely, eastern ports, and the consumer, who in most cases is also a producer and has to ship his supplies in over the same long route, is heavily handicapped by the situation-handicapped to such an extent that if there is any possible way of surmounting the difficulty, the West demands to-day that it be surmounted.
There is a way to overcome the difficulty. The natural outlet for the Prairie Provinces was provided by an all wise Creator in the shape of the Hudson Bay, and it only remains for the hand of man to supply the necessary transportation facilities, the funds for which have already been largely provided by the sale of western lands set aside for that purpose. The

work on this was proceeding fairly satisfactorily, even through most of the war period, but was finally stopped in 1918, and the present Government declines, or neglects, to complete the project, even though the West has, in season and out of season, been pressing for it. The Senate Committee which took evidence in connection therewith last year decided in favour of the scheme. I would impress upon the leaders of the Government that the West demands that the Hudson Bay route be completed.
In the matter of the investigation of the grain trade, I am sure that this group will gladly join in giving all the assistance in its power, and in that direction I wish to inform this House that it was the iniquities of the grain trade in the first place that forced the farmers of the West to organize in self defence, and I can assure you, Sir, from personal experience, that the fight in those days was an up-hill one. Where were the champions of the farmers' cause then who have lately come forward on the Government side, asking for an investigation of the grain trade? I venture to say that, with one or two exceptions, none of them knew or cared what the outcome would be at that time, but if the Government can make any improvement in the conduct of the grain business, the milling business, the shipping business, the textile business, the agricultural implement business, the packing house business, the sugar business, or any other business that affects the common good, it will get all the assistance possible from this group.
I wish to speak of another matter. Two days ago the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) referred to his speech in South York and made this statement, which will be found in Hansard on page 445:
I said that the movement had its /Genesis among the American farmers in the great west.
He was referring to the origin of the Farmers' movement. I want to tell the minister that his information is absolutely false. I have been intimately connected with the Farmers' movement since its inception in 1902. It originated first in the province of Saskatchewan. I have myself been for eleven years a director on the Board and I had the high honour of working in conjunction with the men who originated and organized the movement. I think it might be interesting to the House to learn the nationality of some of these
men. As I look backward over the years and try to recall the outstanding men connected with the movement, it is possible that some of them may escape my memory; but I shall give the names of those who occur to my mind at the moment. Of the Canadian-born directors whom I can remember on the board some have been presidents and some vice-presidents. Of the Canadian-born, there are:	Hon. W. R.
Motherwell, Mr. E. A. Partridge and his brother Mr. H. O. Partridge, Mr. John Miller, Mr. Peter Dayman, Mr. Levi Thomson, Mr. E. N. Hopkins, Mr. David Railton, and, last but by no means least, Mr. John A. Maharg. The British-born are: Sir Richard Lake, Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan, Mr. Allan Hawkes, Mr. F. W. Green, Mr. F. M. Gates, Mr. Matthew Snow, Mr. J. A. Murray, Hon, C. A. Dunning, Provincial Treasurer in the Saskatchewan Government, Hon. George Langley, Minister of Municipal Affairs in the same government, and, in this category, last also, but not by any means least, the hon. member for Mackenzie who sits on my left (Mr. J. F. Reid). In all these years there was not a single American on the board, so far as I can remember, not that there is any reason why they should not have been there. The fact remains, however, that at that time very few Americans had come into the Canadian West. Many have entered the country since and some are on the boards, but they are in the minority, and the American idea has never influenced the movement at any time. I make this statement for the benefit of the minister who made the accusation. It has been stated by the hon. member for Last Mountain, (Mr. Johnston) that had the present situation and the present fiscal policy of the Government been predicted in 1917 in Western Canada, a very different result would have been recorded. And I quite agree with him. But no such policy and no such situation were in sight, nor were they considered in any way at that time. The Minister of Militia admits that the old Unionist party has passed out of existence and that a new party with an attenuated name has taken its place. This being so, and having no confidence in that party, I will support the amendment.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which I address the House in French, I feel that I should offer a word of explanation, if not of apology, to those who, no doubt, believe in all sincerity, that

the French Canadians are in the wrong every time they do not address this House in their mother tongue. I understand and still more appreciate, such feelings on their part, for I do not forget that I once felt as they do, and that, until I had the honour of being elected to Parliament. Until then, I was one of those who believed that French Canadians should fully avail themselves of their right to speak their own language in the House of Commons at Ottawa, whatever the outcome. However, I must say that, as soon as I had acquired some experience in Parliament I soon had to alter my views; this I did at the very first session. It was then that I realized that, whatever our rights to the use of French in this House, if we wish to take a prominent part in the debates of this House, we are thereby under the necessity to speak, not our own tongue, which is ever dear to us, but one that is not our own. And it is for that reason, and at the expense of great sacrifices, as well as great efforts on my part, that, until the present time, I have spoken English in this House. Yet, as I believe that it is my duty to pay a modest tribute to the French language, I am taking the liberty to impose a French speech upon hon. members within these precincts.
Were it necessary to quote authorities in support of my assertion that, notwithstanding our right to the use of the French language, we are compelled for purposes of discussion to speak another language, I would but quote*the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our lamented leader, who, though he spoke one language as fluently as the other, used the English language almost exclusively during the time that he was a member of Parliament, that is to say, for nearly half a century. We could find only a few instances in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's political life when he spoke in French in this House.
What I have just said of our regretted leader might apply equally well to all the great and illustrious ^French Canadians of the House of Commons of Canada. I might say the same of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland); of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) ; and of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) ; I might also mention that Mr. Bourassa, who has made it his business to champion the French language in the province of Quebec-for which I am grateful to him-very seldom,
CM. Denis.]
if I am rightly informed, spoke French in Parliament.
At any rate, the question is settled; whoever wishes to take part in the debates of the House of Commons must use the English language; once more I say that if I have to offer any apology, I am quite ready to do so; my only excuse is the necessity which exists and will continue to exist in the future for all French Canadians to use a language which is not their own, however much they may regret having to do so, if they wish to join in parliamentary debates.
Mr. Speaker, were I to neglect to congratulate the right hon. minister on his accession to the high position he now occupies, I would be unfair both to him and to myself. Whatever be our opinions, whatever be our likes and dislikes-as far as I am concerned, I do not dislike any one-we are bound to admire and acknowledge talent at all times and wherever it may be found, particularly in our country.
It is an undisputed fact, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Prime Minister is a man of great ability, and that this great ability has won for him the high rank he now enjoys, and, saying this of one who is yet a young man is giving him the greatest praise that his fellow citizens can bestow upon him.
Mr. Speaker, I have read very carefully the speech from the Throne. Must I repeat what has already been said so often in this House, that this speech is quite insufficient and incomplete? During this period of reconstruction, at a time when Canada needs all her vital strength and an effective legislation, must it be said that the speech from the Throne has failed altogether to reach the object in view? The great problems of the hour have not been provided for.
The speech from the Throne is a dry document which was presented to us as a simple matter of course; it is a food which has no fragrancy, flavour or taste. The Government, in presenting it, confessed their inability and weakness as well as the instability of their policies.
We are told that this is a new Administration which has been in existence only a few months and that our criticism, if we have any to offer, should not apply to the actions of its predecessors, because the present Government would not be responsible for the blunders committed by the previous administrations.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I hold a different view, and, moreover, it was not the attitude taken by the right hon. Prime

Minister throughout the country and in this debate before the House. It is one of two things: The present Government is either a new government or the continuation of preceding administrations. If it is a new government, then the question which the House has been discussing for the last three weeks, namely, that such a government must submit their new platform to the people, ought to be considered as being a fair proposal since the Government admit themselves that they are a new administration. Such is not, however, the stand taken by the Government.
The hon. Prime Minister says that this Government is nothing but the continuation of the preceding administrations, therefore, if we take him to his word and supposing, for the sake of argument, that this Government is nothing but the continuation of previous administrations, they are responsible for whatever their predecessors have done and they must bear the consequences thereof.
The right hon. Prime Minister has travelled throughout the country to state his policy or rather, as it is commonly said, to talk politics. The hon. gentleman knew that the preceding government was no longer in touch with the people, in other words had lost their confidence. Upon being called suddenly to lead the Government, the hon. gentleman, possessed as we know he is, of youth, ability, initiative and courage, started on a journey throughout the Dominion.
What was the result of that campaign? Have the arguments of the hon. Prime Minister convinced the people of Canada? Has public opinion changed? Has confidence been restored? Have the people of Canada any more faith in this Government than they had in the previous administration five or six months or twelve months ago? The question answers itself; you will find it in every tongue and in every heart. The people throughout the country, are asking just for one thing; that is a general election in which they will have the opportunity to express their sentiments. Hon. gentlemen opposite answering the leader of the Opposition in a somewhat ironical mood absolutely lacking in sincerity said: "You are asking us to vacate our seats for your own benefit."
To put the question in that way, Mr. Speaker, is to distort the truth. That is not the question. The question we are putting before the House and which we shall submit to the people of Canada in due
time, is the following: Fellow citizens, you are called to elect the men who will form a new government. If they should be taken from the ranks of the Conservative or Unionist party, it is all very well. The moment the people have declared themselves, we shall be satisfied with the verdict, because they are the supreme masters of our destiny and they are to decide in last resort as to who shall rule the country. It is often said that the people get the government they deserve. I do not think it would be fair to make the same assertion now, because the people, for ten years at least, as I shall explain it later, have not had any opportunity to select their government.
All that we ask from the Government is to enable the people to select their representatives.
Once the people have voted, if they choose our friends opposite, those amongst us who are returned will be glad to come back and to work as we have done heretofore for the good of the people. Then our friends opposite will not have to submit to such humiliations as they must necessarily feel over a debate like the present one. I for one should not like to occupy a seat on the other side and listen to all that is said from this quarter. It is true that it can be claimed that this is politics and that what is said from this side is said for political objects. One may perhaps find a certain consolation in that, but if one wishes to go to the bottom of things, to examine the question sincerely, one is forced to admit that the position of our friends on the other side of the House is not only precarious, but also humiliating.
I remember that, about twelve years ago, when the British House of Commons was moved into Supply, Mr. Lloyd George insisted on elections taking place and thus taunted his opponents: "What! You are afraid to submit your Budget to the electors of Great Britain! Is it then so precarious that you, the Government in power, have neither the strength, nor the courage, nor the self-reliance that could induce you to submit this Budget to the electors of the country?"
Mr. Speaker, the same argument might apply at the present time, to our friends on the other side of the House. We might say to them, "You, gentlemen, who have been called to power barely three years ago, with a majority of more than 70, you who have won the war and covered yourselves with glory, you who claim to count in your midst the best informed and most capable politicians in the country, you who

receive almost with derision the arguments of the members of the Opposition, why then, is your policy so tottering, have you become so weak, that you fear to present yourselves to the electors and ask for a new mandate?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Speaker, after all that has been said during this debate; after all the challenges, more or less to the point if you like; after all the invectives which have been hurled from one side or the other; suppose that the right hon. Prime Minister would now rise and say to this House, speaking at the same time to all Canada, "Gentlemen, I have had enough of your taunts, I have had enough of your challenges; I have the right to remain at my post for two years more since I have behind me a majority in this House; notwithstanding this, I renounce the right, the privilege, not my own but that of this House, that of the Canadian people. Taking for granted that there may be some truth in all that you have said, I give you the benefit of the doubt, and I ask you to assume the responsibility of the stand you have taken. You summon me to go before the people; very well, I consent to do so, I am ready to go forth and give battle before the people and prove that the party of which I am the leader still has the confidence of Canada."
And suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Prime Minister should ask for the dissolution of Parliament, should go to the people and find he had a majority; what a humiliating situation for us of the Opposition, the Liberals and the Farmers' party! Cannot you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the return to this House, in two or three months, of the member who would be re-elected? Cannot you see those of us who for the last three weeks have been talking against the Government, returning, crest-fallen to salute the new Government, recognizing that they had the confidence of the people?-recognizing at the same time that we had wrongly accused them in clamouring, for three weeks, or a year, or two, that they did not represent the opinion of the people! I vow that if such an event took place, the Government that would return to power would he the strongest since Confederation. They would have the right to impose their will, for they would have given the people, in a period of tranquility, their chance to vote for or against them.

There would then be no ambiguity and no evasion. It would be useless to say: "You have stolen the election during the war or otherwise. It would not be an election on the platform of reciprocity, it would resolve itself into a question of confidence. And if the hon. minister, after having advocated his policy all over the country, as he has been doing for several months, could get it endorsed by the electors, he would be one of the strongest men we have ever had at the head of the destinies of this country, since Confederation, and this while being still in the prime of life, while we, ourselves, on this side of the House, would be astounded and absolutely helpless for a long while to come.
One must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the challenge emanating from this side of the House is of as much consequence to the challenger as to the challenged. One must not imagine, for one moment, that the Liberals who are daring the Government to go before the people, "are not taking as great a risk as the Government would in accepting the challenge. Theoretically, the chances are even; but the Government does not wish to go before the people, because it knows beforehand, and has the intuition born of its deep knowledge of things, and of men, that it is impossible for it to come back to power, and that is precisely the reason why the Government does not pick up the gauntlet which has been thrown.
I have said that the right hon. Prime Minister had toured the country. I must remind you here that he came to the province of Quebec, and I extend my congratulations to him for the courage he has shown in paying a visit to our province.
The hon. Prime Minister knows that he has very few followers or partisans in the province of Quebec, and yet he came; he stated his policy, and, I must say, with great courage. On the other hand, the right hon. Prime Minister should not deceive himself as to the feelings of the province of Quebec. Our feelings are not those of spite, still less of hatred.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.)
Hear, Hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: (Translation.) The province of Quebec is the pivot on which revolves Confederation. Not only is the province of Quebec the pivot of Confederation, but it is also-I would have preferred that the compliment came from an outsider however I say it is the pivot of common and good sense in the Dominion.

When a year ago, or more, the Government was in fear of bolshevism; when strikes and disorders spread from city to city, in certain parts of Canada; when excitement was high and hearts were low, we saw our friends on the other side of the House turn and place their hopes in the province of Quebec and recognize that our province was as I have just said: The pivot of Confederation, of stability and of good common sense.
The province of Quebec is essentially conservative, if you consider that word in its broadest sense, which means the conservation of what we have, the esteem of what we possess, the belief in our traditions, and the attachment for our past. Such is the meaning of conservative, as applied to the province of Quebec.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that in the present circumstances, and on a particularly burning issue which I most certainly have no desire to discuss at the present moment, is it any wonder that the province of Quebec should have been of a different opinion from that held by the other provinces? Is it, forsooth such an extraordinary thing for a province, to differ on certain matters from the other provinces?
Since the beginning of the session, and more particularly since the beginning of the present discussion, we have heard many of our friends on both sides of the House declare, and that very rightly, that the opinion of every one must be respected, and that there is no harm in entertaining a different opinion from that of the majority; such is precisely the argument of our friends of the Agrarian party, when they start to discuss in this House problems which, evidently are not in accordance with the opinion of the great majority of this House, either on this side or the other.
The province of Quebec has its own ideas; it has its traditions, its inclinations, its affections. Unfortunately, the hon. Prime Minister has never understood what are the ideas, the affections, the inclinations and the traditions of the province of Quebec, and that is precisely the reason why he has always remained a stranger to our province.
That is also the reason why the province of Quebec has always stood aloof from him. I mean so far as politics are concerned. Outside of politics, we have all due regard for him and we acknowledge him as a capable and worthy man. But between that statement and political allegiance there exists quite a chasm and many things will happen before that chasm is bridged.

Mr. Speaker, since the last session of Parliament there has been an assembly of the League of Nations at which the Canadian Government was represented by three ministers, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. member from Durham (Mr. Rowell), then president of the privy council. I am pleased to see the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in his seat, the more so because I know that, having learned the beautiful French language, he will no doubt be able to hear and understand the compliments which I am about to shower upon him. It has been said on both sides of the House that Canada had been worthily represented at that meeting. Speaking with that moderation and fairness which I intend to maintain at all times, I would be doing an injustice to these hon. gentlemen who were our representatives on that occasion were I to neglect offering them heartfelt congratulations for the manner in which they represented us.
The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is endowed with an eloquence which younger members of the House should always emulate, and it was sufficient for us to hear him, a few days ago, reporting what had been going on at that meeting to understand how brilliantly and creditably he represented us. I must add that what I just said of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is equally applicable to the hon. gentlemen who accompanied him. Yet, was it not unfortunate that Canada should not have been represented by a French Canadian at that meeting? In this country French Canadians make up a third of the population in round numbers. This meeting of the League of Nations was held in Geneva. French and English were the official languages. I say French and English and I designedly put French in the first place because that language was chiefly resorted to. We had that admission from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech, an admission willingly made. With his usual frankness and outspokenness, when answering a question which I put, he said in a very candid manner that French was in much more common use than English at that meeting. However, this was already known to me, having myself had the privilege of attending for a week or over, sittings of the international labour conference, which was

held at Washington in the month of November, 1919, and seeing that the international labour conference was composed of the same nations represented at the meeting of the League of Nations, I had noticed that French was resorted to much oftener than any other language. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, French Canadians accounting for a third of the population and seeing that two thirds, at least, of forty odd nations assembled, spoke French, would it not have been reasonable, and I shall say proper, to have a Frendh-speaking representative there? At that meeting which was held quite near Paris, at the intellectual centre of Europe, largely made up of peoples speaking the French language, would it not have been proper to make it known that there is in Canada another race than the Anglo-Saxon race-notwithstanding all the respect for this race, I shall go further -that there are men of high attainments and of great ability among that race forming a third of the Canadian population? Would it have been impossible to the Government to select as a third representative a French-speaking man who could have been a credit not only to the Government, but also to the French tongue and the French Canadian race? No, Mr. Speaker, such a step would have been two upright in the eyes of the Government, they did not think fit to select a French-Canadian representative and thus they led Europeans, at least those who do not know any better, to believe, that Canada is a country inhabited only by Anglo-Saxons and people who cannot speak any other language than English.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. The hon. member is reading his speech and I believe that this is against the rules of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: (Text) I understand , that the hon. member (Mr. Mackie) raises the point that the hon member for Joliette is reading his speech.


Mr. DENNIS:: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, never has a point of order been raised with so little justification. If there ever was an occasion in my life when I did not read my speech that is the present time, when I have barely a few notes before me. I would not like to leave the House under the impression for an instant that I am reading my speech. I would rather believe that my hon. friend (Mr. 
Mackie) is of my opinion when I claim that a French-speaking representative should have been sent to that meeting of the League of Nations.


Henry Arthur Mackie: (Translation) Yes, I
agree with you.


William Dennis: (Translation) Being
aware that my hon. friend knows French well, I think he is not forgetful of himself perhaps and believes that he should have been sent to that meeting. This is why, I surmise, he interrupted me, but I shall take no notice of his interruption and shall continue-I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been proper, eminently proper, for the Government, if the right hon. Prime Minister had wished to prove that he had some consideration and friednship for the province of Quebec, to have had a representative of the French Canadian element at this meeting of the League of Nations. At the International Conference of Labour, much less important, no doubt, which took place in a city nearer than Geneva, Washington, the Canadian Government was represented by two ministers, the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson.) 1 do not know whether any of these gentlemen were qualified to represent either the French element or the French language, and as I said just now the predominant language at the International Conference of Labour was French. The delegates of the forty-one nations represented there met daily, continually exchanging views, at banquets and elsewhere-and we had there only two representatives, very worthy ones, but who knew not a word of French. Mr. Speaker, I know for instance, of a banquet at which were present the South American delegates and at which French was almost exclusively spoken-Canada's two representatives were present, and did not understand what was being said-I do not reproach these gentlemen with not knowing French-it is hard to learn a foreign language-but I reproach the Government. Each time that an important occasion presents itself they try to give the impression to foreign nations that Canada is an English country in which there are only English-speaking people, and that the French-Canadians are a negligible quantity unworthy of representation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: ( Translation) Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: (Translation) If it were
for no other reasons than these, I would say that the right hon. Prime Minister could not expect much sympathy from the province of Quebec. When the right hon. Prime Minister will have proved to the province of Quebec that he is ready to do it justice, not only by words but toy acts, then perhaps that province may in part turn to him, because Quebec is not prejudiced, but is sincere, and the opinions it holds are not those of a day, but fundamental, based upon its traditions and its history. And if one looks back one finds that the province of Quebec was for many years Conservative. How does it happen that these old Conservative traditions have been abandoned and the province of Quebec has become what it is to-day? It is because, with the same reasoning and the same good sense, the province of Quebec at this time has no confidence in this Government. It feels that it has had enough of the Conservative party, and slowly but surely it has broken away from it.
As it has taken a generation and even more for the province of Quebec to detach itself from the Conservative party, so will it be before Quebec places its confidence in another party than the Liberal one, unless, and this we cannot foresee, the Liberal party by misdeeds should prove unworthy of its confidence.
I mentioned just now that the speech from the Throne was a very meagre document. If ever there was a question which should have been submitted or at least discussed in this speech, specially as it . has been brought up in this debate, it is surely the financial standing of the country.
Mr. Speaker, we do not realize to the full extent the financial state of our country. The hon. members of this House must bear in mind that' for the last twelve months our public debt has been about two billion and a quarter and while our revenues are daily decreasing, the debt is steadily on the increase.
Mr. Speaker, if such is our financial situation, with revenues steadily going down, where will this lead us to? The Government has both the responsibility and the duty to balance the finances of this country and from the moment it acknowledges its inability to do so it should make way for another Government. The present mismanagement conducing the ruin of the country Would suffice to warrant us in demanding the dissolution of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, has it ever entered the head of the hon. members of this House that we are at present, and are becoming daily more and more dependent economically out of the United States. Probably this utterance displeases my hon. friends on- the opposite side of this House. These hon. gentlemen are ultra loyal to England and when we say that we are becoming an economical dependency, the expression naturally wounds and shocks them. It is not a pleasure for me to use these words; however, one must admit the evidence of facts. We are at present and are becoming more and more an economical dependency of the United States. At present, in order to maintain our commerce, our industries, to meet our daily requirements and support our family we are forced to import to the extent of nearly one billion dollars a year. On the other hand our exports hardly amount to a little over half a billion. We buy from the United States in round figures for a billion and in return sell to the amount of five or six hundred million dollars.
Mr. Speaker, where will this state of affairs lead us to? We are simply drifting to bankruptcy or probably I may be more correct in saying, we are drifting towards annexation, that is we are becoming every day more and more an economical dependency of the United States. At the present time in order to trade with the United States we are losers to the extent of one hundred million dollars per year. For the products we purchase from them by paying the difference of the rate of exchange which has varied between 8 and a fraction, 19 and a fraction since 1912, we make them a present of one hundred million dollars per year. In other words when buying one billion dollars worth of goods, we pay naturally the billion dollars, but over and above that amount, we make them a present of over one hundred millions.


Samuel William Jacobs: (Translation.) It is extortion, not a present.


Jean-Joseph Denis: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, that is the situation we have to face at present. How will we stand in three, six or twelve months? No one knows. There are astute observers amongst the financiers of this country who contend that it is possible that the rate of exchange which was
19	and a fraction three months ago, might again attain that figure and perhaps reach
20	and 25 per cent. Should this happen, we should be absolutely at the mercy of the United States, for the simple reason that we are at present compelled to purchase


Mr. McMASTER:: (Translation.) Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: (Translation.) And our opponents were proclaiming everywhere; "The government we have is a coalition one composed of Liberals and Conservatives; it is not a government which is expected to last long." Everybody knew at that time that it was a government which would not last forever, that it was a provisional government, a coalition in order to "win the war" as the saying was at that time. I have the greatest respect for the views of those who then formed themselves into a group to promote a policy which prevailed, but it must be admitted that the means they took were far from being legitimate.
To-day, that question having been settled and the war being over, we have to decide whether or not in 1917 the elections were held upon the general policy of the government. ^ The following answer cannot be gainsaid:	In 1917 the elections were not
held upon the general policy of the government, but upon a single issue-then a burning one which is not so now, that is, in what manner were we to endeavour to win the war. That is precisely the ground upon which the elections were fought in 1917.
Now, events having taken another turn; the war being won, we may justly say that there have been no elections since 1911 because the people of this country were not called upon to give their verdict since then. However there is something more forcible and I would say more amusing, if I may use that term: it is that during this session we shall have to decide upon the fiscal policy of this country. Now, I ask the hon. gentlemen opposite whether or not Canadian electors ever thought that the representatives they were electing in 1917 would be called upon to decide the fiscal policy of Canada?
I remember that on many occasions when we came to this House in 1918 certain members on the opposite side raised fiscal issues and each time when questions of this nature were brought forward, interested friends, no doubt of those who made these enquiries, would rise and appeal to the whole House for support-each time such an issue was raised in 1918, immediately a minister of the Crown, or an hon. member would exclaim: We are not here to discuss fiscal issues, we are here to win

the war, this Government was elected to win the war and when this is done, we shall settle our accounts.
Is it not a fact that what I have just mentioned not only was said once, but twenty-five times in this House?
In 1918, our friends on the opposite side admitted that they were not here to discuss fiscal issues, but to carry on the war. Well, so far the war was concerned, the hon. members on the right were in perfect agreement because they were elected on a definite programme and they acted accordingly. They followed their programme as long as the war lasted, and I have no fault to find, they were consistent with their former stand. However, hardly was the war over that we witnessed their disaggregation. Hon. members followed one another declaring that, the purpose of the election was to win the war, but as the war was over, parties should return to their old lines; that those at present holding office had not been elected to govern the country in time of peace or to settle the fiscal issues, or to decide on questions which cropped up presently-it was a war government whose existence depended upon the war and the problems involved with it. Mr. Speaker, I beg to be excused for having-taken up so much time. I might bring forth further arguments, but I am not so conceited as to hope that I could alter the views of my hon. friends opposite. I crave the indulgence of those I may have somewhat tired by this lengthy speech. I hope that when the vote is taken in a few minutes the Government will realize, that an Administration returned with seventy of a majority in 1917 and reduced to what it is at present, should examine their conscience, consider the necessity of returning before their masters and seeking a new mandate to present themselves before this House. But, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if this mandate will ever be granted to them.


Mr. WILLIAM HENRY WHITE (Victoria, Alta.) :: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take any part in this debate, but as the hour is early-we have the whole day before us!-I would like to offer a few remarks in reply to some of the suggestions that have been made by several hon. members on the other side of the House.
In the first place I think it is my duty to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister, as the right hon. gentleman

came into this House at the same election as I did. I had the pleasure of journeying with him to Ottawa. At that time we had about the same ideals, the same aspirations, and we did believe that perhaps we might in some way work for the benefit of that great western country whence we came. For the first session or two we got along very well together. At that time I was interested in the stock business in the West, and as conditions were not very favourable I put a resolution on the Order Paper in favour of a cold storage system to be operated by the Government. I received the support of every hon. member from the western provinces, but the best support came from the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Government. As I say, at that time we shared the same ideals, but since then we have been drifting apart. I have watched my right hon. friend climbing upwards on a different path, and he has now reached the peak.
Mr." JACOBS: And is going down again.


William Henry White: Yes. He has got to the peak of the greatest autocracy that ever controlled the destinies of this country. I suppose in the opinion of the masses he has travelled faster than I have and has become a much greater man.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, no.


William Henry White: But I stayed where I was, believing in the common people, still retaining the beliefs that I held when I came here, and which he also held at that time. I have stood where I was; he has advanced. Perhaps he imbibed a different spirit after coming down here. Believing, as I did, that certain things were in the interests of my country, I have been satisfied to stay where I still am, rather than attempt to follow my right hon. friend to the high position which he now holds. However, in all fairness to my right hon. friend I will say that only by his energy and his industry has he attained the highest honour Canada can give him, and if that position is to be held by any hon. member on the opposite side of the House, I do not believe there is anybody more deserving or more fitted to hold it than my right hon. friend.
I also wish to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. In my observation extending over fifteen sessions I have never seen that duty performed in a more creditable and able manner. But my reason for rising to-night, Mr. Speaker, is not particularly to congratulate the mover and seconder of the

Address, but rather to offer some observations on certain features of the debate.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) discussed some grievances from which the western farmer suffered and dealt with the matter of the car shortage in that country, The hon. member pointed out that there was a shortage of equipment on the Canadian National railways and that the farmers suffered a great deal in consequence. I agree with every statement he made in that regard. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Blair) followed the hon. member for Mackenzie, but he seemed to think that the disadvantages the western producers laboured under were due to the operations in grain. The hon. gentleman delivered a splendid speech. It was his maiden effort and I congratulate him upon it. But he must know better than to advance such an argument as he did. He and I were on two delegations that met the Prime Minister when he visited the city of Edmonton last fall.
The great grievance complained of then was not the spread in prices, or the matter in which the grain business was handled, but the car shortage. Had there been in the proper sense of the term adequate railway equipment, the spread of prices which the hon. gentleman mentioned would not have cut any figure at all. The producers were in the independent position that they would not have needed to deal with the line elevators, and might have ignored the street prices; they could have shipped their grain independently if they could have got the cars they needed. Had sufficient cars been available they would not have been affected by the spread in prices; they could have shipped their grain to the terminal elevators and sold it there. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) has made the statement that he ordered about double the number of cars contracted for by the Canadian Pacific Railway and had done twice as much as that company to relieve the congestion. Well, if that were the case, and if the cars were available, they certainly did not reach our part of the country. Every western member knows that the congestion of cars was felt all along the line of the Canadian National, Railways. We were told by the General Superintendent at Edmonton that with the equipment possessed by the Canadian National Railways it would take three years to move the crop according to the estimates he had received. My hon. friend from Battle River was present at the meeting and heard Mr. Brown make the statement.
A demand has been made for a new Grain Commission to be appointed to deal with the existing difficulties. As my hon. friend from Red Deer pointed out, we already have a Grain Commission composed of men of ten or twelve years' experience. Surely another commission is not needed to deal with the matter. However, the point upon which I wish to lay stress is that had sufficient cars been available the spread of prices complained of would not have bothered the producers and they could have sold their grain in the open market. I raised considerable grain myself last year, in fact I come from a section where their was a bumper crop. We are holding that grain to-day because we could not dispose of it by reason of the lack of adequate equipment on the Canadian National railways.
The real grievance of the West to-day along the Canadian National Railway lines is lack of equipment. The member for Battle River (Mr. Blair) knows well that the prices are from seven to ten cents higher in the districts covered by the Canadian Pacific than they are along the Canadian National railways, because it is recognized that along the Canadian Pacific, where proper equipment is available, the grain will be brought out in the early part of the season, so that advantage can be taken of lake transportation. The suggestion on the part of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) and other hon. gentlemen opposite that the great detriment to the producers in the West has been the spread of prices and that kind of thing is only a bugaboo; the real difficulty arises from car shortage. The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. Wright) was present at the meeting when Mr. Brown stated that if the estimate of this year's crop was correct, the Canadian National could not move it out with their equipment in less than three years. I would like to know how many farmers will go very far in the matter of production next year under circumstances such as these. Let hon. gentlemen who represent the western districts forget their party affiliations and truly represent the sections of the country from which they come; it is a simple matter.
There may be a great deal that is wrong about the grain business, and if a commission can be appointed that will make things better for the producer, why, I am willing to support anything that could be done along that line. But I take the same view as that expressed by the member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), when he suggests

that there is no reason why we should appoint one commission to investigate the doings of another. We already have a commission on the job; why appoint another to find out some imaginary wrongs, particularly when every producer knows what the real cause of the trouble is. We can get away from grain commissions altogether if we have proper transportation facilities for the shipment of our grain to the open market. The Minister of Railways says he has put into commission double the number of cars that the Canadian Pacific have put on their road. Well, if he has, they are not in evidence.
Some hon. members have spoken of redistribution. I want to make an honest statement in regard to this. Everybody will agree that the West is not bothering very much about redistribution. In fact, the West believe that they are not properly represented in the House to-day. There are very few members here to-day who represent the actual sentiment of the West. Who believes that hon. gentlemen from the West on the Government side represent the views of the people of the West? Nobody believes it. The real sentiment of the West to-day is represented on this side, not only by the two Liberal members from the West, but by what is called the Progressive group. They represent western opinion; there is no doubt about that-and the Government know it; let them test it and find out. The views of the West to-day are very well expressed by the Calgary Albertan, which says: We would like to have more representation in the West, but we would rather take a chance right now than wait to see how many more representatives we might have. No one will have the audacity to stand up and say that hon. gentlemen sitting behind the Treasury Benches represent the voice of the West.
What is this Agrarian group to my left? Ho you not think, Sir, that this is a body of intelligent men who, when they found that they were not representing public opinion, left their party and crossed over to this side? No better evidence than that could be offered of their intelligence. I do not contend that I, as a Liberal, represent the whole sentiment of the West; there is no doubt that others were wise enough to know what public sentiment was, and when they found out that the people were not satisfied with the Government, they crossed over to this side. They did not cross over to this side to defy the electors of their constituencies; they crossed over because they considered they were f Mr. W. H. White.]
the servants of the people. When they found that the people had no confidence in the Government, as honest, sincere representative's of the people, they followed public opinion and cut thmselves free from hon. gentlemen opposite. Nobody can believe anything else to be the case.
In conclusion, I want to say that, perhaps not in a very eloquent manner, but in the simple language that comes easy to me, I have tried to make an honest statement to both sides of the House. Although I know hon. gentlemen opposite are looking for their support to other sections of the country than that from which I come, I am trying as honestly as I can to represent the views and sentiments of the people who sent me here.


Mr. ADOLPHE STEIN (Kamouraska) :: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, which has already lasted over two weeks, and especially at this stage it would be impossible for the humble member that I am to throw any light on the matters under discussion. But after reading in the Montreal Gazette of February 28 that the Opposition had failed in this debate to point to any wrong-doing on the part of the Government, I decided to endeavour to show, in as few words as possible, some of the innumerable pieces of mischief that have disgraced the record of this Government, elected in 1911 and reelected, by accident, in 1917. The Gazette challenges the Opposition in the following words :
The debate on the address, as .have all debates for three years, has been remarkable in that there has been no suggestion of wrongdoing or maladministration on the part of the Government. Either the Opposition is too dense to perceive errors, or the Government has given Canada a wonderful example of administrative capacity and probity. The old charges of scandal no longer obtain. Nor are there likely to be any charges. The Government may have made mistakes, but no one has the courage to say that its members permitted the treasury to be plundered by themselves or party friends.
We on this side of the House were profoundly amazed when we read those wofds. We would never have imagined that the Government's friends would be bold enough to challenge the Opposition to reiterate the many scandals and numerous feats of maladministration that stained the Borden Government, and for which- the present Administration rightly admits responsibility. For the sake of Canadian pride, we of the Opposition would have very much preferred to avoid publishing those terrible national misdemeanors, more especially

when it is a well-known fact that in other countries during the war those who dared to indulge in similar mischievous acts were either very severely punished with penalties or imprisonment or very often shot as traitors to their country, while in this country of ours the guilty remained undisturbed, when they were not held in favour for Canadian or Imperial positions of trust. But we accept the challenge and I will, therefore, give a list, though incomplete on account of the late hour at which I am speaking, of some of the very numerous scandals that we have already charged and that we claim to have proved against the Government.
There is a first group, known to the country as " war contract scandals," as investigated by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in 1915. It was proved before that committee that war contracts were let without any tenders, or any kind of competition whatever, and that the Government's purchasing system was loose, irregular and illegal. The Auditor General, before the committee on March 17, 1915, speaking of purchases, said:
It was worse than that; they were not made in compliance with the Act.
Indeed, war goods amounting to over $1,000,000,000 had been bought without Orders-in-Council, as required by law. It was also brought out in evidence that the Tory patronage system then existing compelled the use of middlemen in all contracts. I shall give a very brief nomenclature of those scandals that the Gazette claims not to exist or to have been forgiven or forgotten:	The horse scandal,
which brought about the resignation of a Tory member of this House; the drug scandal which caused the resignation of another Tory member of this House; the binocular scandal and many others that will pass over without mentioning; the nickel scandal, which raised in this House a debate in which several members and especially one on the Government side laid considerable blame on the Government; the shell scandal and the fuse scandal, which alone meant a million dollar rake-off.
In another group not connected with the war, I might mention several other deeds of maladministration, such as, for instance, the padlock scandal, in the Post Office Department; the Carslake scandal in the same department; the Dorval military camp scandal in the Department of Militia, and the extravagant payment of several hundred thousand dollars to foreigners, Arthur Young and Company, and the Griffenha gen
and associates, to perform a so-called civil service re-organization which could only have been properly performed by the heads of departments together with our Civil Service Commission.
Why, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Gazette reporter has already forgotten all these wrong-doings! Is it not in this very same paper that I read, in an editorial of June 14, 1920, under the title " a con-demnable contract," the following charge against the Cabinet in connection with the above expenditures:
The whole episode reflects ministerial incompetency in a most unusual way, and the Government cannot too soon repair its mistake by terminating a contract repugnant to National pride.
And again, what about the creation, by Order-in-Council, on July 15, 1920, fourteen days after prorogation, of a Central Purchasing Board, a scheme which had encountered during a debate last session, the hostility of the great majority of this House? How many other scandals have there been, Sir, the mention of which would be much too long for my purpose? The gentleman who represents the Montreal Gazette in the press gallery is at liberty now to send again to his home office a despatch stating that we on this side of the House are "too dense to perceive errors."
It has been stated by previous speakers in the course of this debate that the people of Quebec would forgive, but could not forget, the treatment that they received from the Government. Well, I venture to say that the people of Canada at large will neither forget nor forgive those numerous scandals which have been detected and proved against the Government, whether they have been perpetrated with the connivance or through the gross negligence of the Government. In closing my remarks on this point, I wish to give credit to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) for his frankness in admitting, in a speech delivered in Winnipeg, on October 22, 1917, that he, as a member of the Conservative Government, was bound to share all the responsibilities assumed by the former Government, replaced, in the fall of 1917, by the Union Government.
During the recess and in the course of this debate, much has been said of the feelings of the province of Quebec towards the - present Ministry, and of the very affectionate and touching friendship entertained by the same ministry not only for the province of Quebec, but towards the three million French-speaking citizens of this country.

The very eloquent member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), in beautiful and forcible, though mild and courteous language, has laid before the House undeniable evidence, showing to what a great extent the friendly words uttered by the right hon. the Prime Minister and by his colleagues are flatly contradicted by their own acts and deeds, when it is up to these same gentlemen to give concrete form to their flirtations with our French-speaking people.
The hon. member for Beauce mentioned several instances of recent injustice done to the French-speaking people by the Government. He particularly inquired from the ministry why not a single representative of the French Canadians had been invited to join in with the ministers who represented, or at least assumed that they held a mandate to represent, Canada at the Peace Conference and at the Assembly of the' League of Nations.
I would go one step further, and ask the Government the reason why, if any, the only French-speaking member of the Cabinet was not invited, and even induced to attend those conferences as the representative of one-third of our population? If the hon. gentleman, who occupies the position of Postmaster General, was not then available, why did they not invite the very distinguished French Canadian who is the present Speaker of the Senate, and who is also, I am told, a member of the Privy Council? Has he not the confidence of the present ministry?-and what about the hon. Senators Beaubien, and Chapais? These also are two very brilliant French Canadian supporters of the present ministry. And, Mr. Speaker, a like courtesy to one-third of our Canadians would not have necessitated an election in Quebec!
May I be permitted to add a few more instances as a sequel to those brought forward by my hon. friend, the member for Beauce? When the late lamented Hon. S. N. Parent, the father of the hon. member for Quebec West, resigned from the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, in October, 1911, he was replaced by Major Leonard, an English Canadian, and the French Canadians were left without representation on this board, which was managing a railroad traversing the province of Quebec for several hundred miles. When the French Canadian head of the Government workshops at Sorel, in the county of Richelieu, Quebec, was compelled to go out of office, he was replaced by one Mr. Jackson, an English Canadian. When the late Thomas Cote was asked to 
resign, after September 21, 1911, as secretary of the International Waterways Joint Commission, he was replaced by one Mr. Burpee. Mr. Justice McDougall succeeded the late Judge Champagne in the French judicial district of Hull. Chief Justice Landry, in New Brunswick, was replaced by Mr. Justice Chandly. Mr. Blount succeeded Major Chapleau as clerk of the Senate, although a French Canadian was there available, in the person of the deputy clerk, who had been holding office for many years. Senator Webster succeeded the late Senator Landry in the Senate.
Who sat, may I ask, as a representative of the French Canadians, on the Public Records Commission; on the Board of Grain Commissioners; in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; on the War Trade Board; on the Canada Food Board; on the Canada Registration Board; on the Pensions Board?
Is it not a well-known fact that out of thirty "Trade Agents" that we have in foreign countries, the French Canadians are given but one representative? The hon. the Postmaster General recently stated elsewhere that he is representing in the ministry the hundreds of thousands of French Canadians, who, according to him, voted for the Government in 1917.
I beg to submit that it would seem obvious, from the statements which I have made that this hon. gentleman is satisfied with holding a public office for his own self and sake, and that he lacks influence with his colleagues whenever an opportunity arises for him to exact the appointment of a French compatriot to an office of public trust. This failure in the hon. the Postmaster General's duty of procuring for his French fellow-citizens their just share in the public trusteeships reminds me of a statement made in October, 1917, by Sir John Willison, in a letter of appreciation of the Coalition Government to "The New York Tribune." This writer, a stalwart Union supporter, alluding to the present Postmaster General and to his former colleague from Quebec, now politically deceased, wjote as follows:
In the new Cabinet there are only two French ministers, and these are among the least weighty of its members.
Is this statement a reply to our inquiry as to why this French minister was not invited to the Peace Conference or to the League of Nations with his English colleagues ?
And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, while I am taking the liberty of dealing with the

hon. the Postmaster General, who holds this office as a member of the Senate, I would very respectfully suggest to the right hon. the leader of this House that the present vacancy in the county of Yamaska, Quebec, affords a unique and splendid opportunity for the Postmaster General to secure for himself a comfortable seat in this beautiful chamber. Indeed, this constituency of Yamaska happens to be the hon. gentleman's native county; he has even been residing therein as recently as a few months ago. Then why not try his chance there just now?
I will go still further in this connection.
I assume, from the wording of the Electoral Act, as it now stands, and also from the amendment made to the House of Commons Act in the second session of 1919, that it would seem to be your own duty, Mr. Speaker, immediately to issue your warrant for this election. Let me explain myself.
Section 9 of the House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter 11, reads in part as follows:
If any vacancy happens in the House of Commons by the death of any member .... the 'Speaker, on being informed of such vacancy by any member of the House in his place .... shall forthwith address his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy; and a new writ shall issue accordingly.
Now, under the new law, as drafted last year, the Clerk of the House of Commons holds the office of the former Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. On the second day of this session, as shown on pages 7 and 8 of Hansard, it -was stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister and by my hon. leader, who were both addressing you, Mr. Speaker, that our regretted colleague, the late member for Yamaska, had passed away during the recess. Hence, I take it for granted, Mr. Speaker, that you have been sufficiently informed, under the Act, as to this vacancy, and I very respectfully submit that it is your duty to issue your warrant accordingly.
At all events, in order to remove any possible misunderstanding I, myself, now from my place in this House, beg leave officially to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the former member for Yamaska, Mr. Oscar Gladu, died over two months ago, and that, therefore, a vacancy has occurred in that electoral district.
It is true that a delay of six months is mentioned in section 11-A of the House of Commons Act. But this is a maximum limit; it was intended to mean that six
months' delay might be allowed during recess. But I humbly submit that, when Parliament is called to meet in session, all the vacancies should have been filled before the opening of the session, in order to give to every constituency the representatives to whom it is entitled. I assume that this is a sound interpretation of this new law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, following again and further the argument made by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in this House, on the 18th of last month, I will quote from the remarks of the member for Frontenac the following, as they appear in Hansard at page 141:
I challenge the leader of the Opposition, or any of those sitting behind him, to quote one single sentence, one single line, one single thought expressed in words by the present Prime Minister of Canada at any time, in this House or out of it, which has indicated the slightest feeling of hostility or unfriendliness to the people of the province of Quebec.
I will make a compromise with the hon. member for Frontenac; I will agree, but only for the sake of argument, that his honourable leader is, towards French-Can-adians and in connection with the treatment that he has afforded to them, a sinner more by way of omission than by commission. But we feel the injustice just the same, whatever may be the artful mode of procedure adopted by the hon. member's leader when dealing with the Quebec people, or with French-Canadians in other provinces.
Before closing, I would call to my aid in this connection,-to prove that my remarks are accurate on this very important subject, which is a vital one for one-third of the people of this country,-a very remarkable , editorial of the Montreal Gazette of May 17, 1920. This editorial, which was headed "French and the Franchise," had regard to the then pending-debate in this House on the new electoral law. I will omit a few sentences, unfortunately, to save time, but I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues, will read this editorial in its entirety and that, in the future, when boasting that they are giving equal and equitable treatment to all races and creeds in Canada, they will sincerely meditate upon the sound and sane principles of justice, as so thoroughly expounded in this article, which reads, in part:
Several hours were devoted in the Commons last week to the discussion of a subject upon which we think there is no room for controversy, namely, the desirability of having the

Proclamation of an election printed in the French language in electoral districts in which there are a considerable number of electors who understand that tongue, but are not familiar with the English language. The matter was brought up by Mr. Turgeon, of Gloucester, New Brunswick, .who, in a temperate speech urged the desirability of giving to the French population communication in their own language of proceedings relating to the very foundation of popular government, the election of members, and, with customary exceptions, the debate was conducted in admirable mood, though not upon a lofty plane. There was much citation of the Constitution to prove where begin the rights of the French people in respect of official use of their language, and where those rights end, and a disposition to place rigid and narrow construction upon the Confederation Act in a matter that fairly transcends the strict letter of the law. Constantly are we reminded that harmony and cordiality between the two great races, which inhabit ICanada rest more upon sentiment and generous feeling than upon the text of a statute.
The editorial in another place says:
Mr. Turgeon told the House that "French people are sentimental; they appreciate anything that is done in their behalf; "but while sentiment must always receive recognition, there is a yet higher motive to move man, that of justice and of regard for the general good.
Finally it says:	-
It may not be a great matter that in French districts electoral proclamations should be issued in the French language; but it is of consequence that FrenchJCanadians be not irritated by a sense of injustice, that they be not pin-pricked, and that their great part in forming and fostering Confederation should And expression in equitable legislation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Prime Minister appeared before the Frenchspeaking people of this country some months ago, did he offer any explanation why he and his colleagues remained mute during the debate in question last year? Did he tender an apology for their refusal to grant, when it was most opportune to do so to the French-speaking minority, "Equitable Legislation," as their organ calls it, and thus to prove in good faith that their legislative acts, if not their administrative deeds, accord with their political performances?
No, Mr. Speaker, the law remained as it was. _ The Prime Minister did not utter one single word of ill-feeling towards the French-speaking people, but he committed another sin of omission.	[DOT]
I believe that I have already spoken too long, and I shall close with the following words:	I shall vote for the amendment
offered by our distinguished leader. I am sure that if the Hon. Robert Rogers were in this House, he who, as a true Conserva-
	'	.
tive, organized the 1911 elections for the benefit of a number of our friends opposite, he, too, would vote for an election. Indeed, he stated very recently that the. Government are only anxious for one thing, namely, to maintain themselves in office. What the people mostly need at present to obtain from the Government is not apologies nor promises, but elections.
An election at the present time would have-I dare say, with all due respect- the sanitary effect of a most complete whitewash in Government premises. It would clear the political atmosphere. It would afford every Canadian elector a proper means of expressing his views on the actual political situation.


Mr. EDMOND SAVARD (Chicoutimi-Saguenay) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night, I think it only right to let my hon. friends know that I shall be very brief. After the numerous speeches we have listened to, it would seem that I should refrain from raising my voice, being satisfied that I could not add anything new to the remarks made upon the address and the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition.
But on the other hand, I believe that the electors whom I have the honour to represent, may rightly expect that I take part in this important debate, one of the most important perhaps, of this Parliament, since it involves the. life or death of the Government.
I do not hesitate to declare that my fellow-citizens will readily pardon me, especially at this late hour, if I do not linger over the speech from the throne. The dish which was served to us amidst extraordinary pomp at the opening of the session, was so very meagre that it seems to me it was long ago digested.
As to the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition, (the hon. Mr. King) I say with the greatest sincerity, that from my point of view, never in our parliamentary history has a non-confidence motion been more justifiable than that one now submitted to the consideration of the country's representatives.
I shall content myself with approving what has been said of the mover and seconder of the address. These hon. members acquitted themselves of an arduous duty with honour to themselves and the counties they represent. We would have liked, no doubt, to have heard one of these

speeches in French, and the right hon. Prime Minister had on that occasion an opportunity to prove the sincerity of the advances he has been making to the province of Quebec for some months. But one must admit what is evident, everything French is as repugnant to the right hon. Prime Minister as to his colleagues. I do not believe that one could find outside these falls an intelligent man, honest and disinterested, who would dare to affirm on his honour that the Government has the confidence of the majority of the electors or even of the members of this House. How many are there in the House itself who would make such a statement. The right hon. Prime Minister has declared to us that he would carry on as long as he had the confidence of a majority of the people's representatives, but he knows as well as we do, and perhaps better than most of us, since he has been touring the country, that the people are certainly against him. The high position that he occupies, his undeniable worth, should induce him to refrain from making absurd statements and covering himself with ridicule, as certain of his partisans have done, in saying that the country is satisfied with its Government, and that in going before the people he would be returned to power. The hon. Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) admitted the other day that the majority of by-elections since 1917 had gone against the Borden Government, but he said that the election had taken place since the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen) held his present office justified him in stating that the people are in favour of of the Government. It is impossible to believe that the hon. Minister of Militia was serious in making such a statement. And, Mr. Speaker, you must have remarked the satisfaction on this side of the House when the hon. minister declared that he was no longer a Liberal. Let us hope that this statement is more sincere than the other.
All the hon. members of the loyal opposition who have taken part in this debate have proved most clearly that the result of the last elections condemns the new Government, as the hon. Minister- of Militia calls it. No, Mr. Speaker, there is not a sensible man, but is convinced that, in the event of immediate dissolution, the greater number of the hon. members sitting at your right, would not dare present themselves again to their electors, and would therefore be forced to say goodbye to those around them now. This, as has been shown by many hon. members of the Opposition, is the sole reason why the Government does not want an election. Redistribution is only a pretext. Never before has such a reason been invoked to delay the date of an election. Whatever may be the differences of opinion on the subject of the usurpation of power by the Government, it can not be denied that the last elections were fought over conscription, with the voting done according to the war-time election Act; therefore, as stated by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McLean) former minister in the Union cabinet, the alliance of Liberals and Conservatives was to end with the war. The war ended over two years ago; if the Government does not hold the power unconstitutionally they have had no mandate to continue to administer the affairs of the country after the war. The right hon. Prime Minister, the Hon. Minister of the Militia as well as several other members, have cited a certain number of cases in England and Canada where there has been a change of Prime Minister without general elections.
I shall not discuss these precedents, for I should not do justice to them after the ability with which a number of my hon. friends on this side of the House have taken them up. The proof was very clearly brought out specially by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who made one of the most admirable speeches ever made in this House. These examples do not apply at present to the Government. It gives me much pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec East on the great success he. obtained. It did not come entirely as a suprise as we expected it, but let me add that his success surpassed our highest expectations. His eloquence and the force of his arguments were to all his friends a matter of great satisfaction. No further doubt can be entertained that the mandate given the Government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden in 1917, or pethaps I should say the mandate which was extorted by the Union Government, was for war aims only. You may argue as you please, once the war was over, the mandate ceased. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Militia has argued like many others that the hon. leader of the Opposition has no right to speak for the whole Liberal party since he only represents portions of it. Let me say once for all that this declaration on the part of a minister of

the Crown or rather a member of a broken up and moribund government can only be termed despicable for he knows but too well that he was selected as leader of the Liberal party by their representatives from all the provinces of Canada. Moreover the party is proud of its leader. We recognize him as the worthy successor of our lamented chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In addition to the arguments brought forward by our leader we have an unlimited number of reasons which induce us to vote in favour of his motion. We have not forgotten the Borden Government. The hon. member (Mr. Stein) who has just taken his seat enumerated in detail the numerous scandals which croped up under his Administration and I therefore do not intend to review them again. However I shall draw your attention to the fact which is so well known that in 1911, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out of power, he left the country in a most prosperous state. It is equally well known that only a few years were necessary for the Borden Government to bring it on the verge of bankruptcy. No one can forget the innumerable misdemeanours that this Administration was guilty of. Under the guise of economy this Government dismissed hundreds of civil employees with the premeditated intention of replacing them, as we know, by thousands of their friends who to-day fill the departments to overflow. We have not forgotten the most out-crying scandal: the purchase of the Canadian Northern Railway. How shall we ever forget that most unjust enactment of the closure and of the Conscription Act, the sudden descent upon our peaceful country of regiments with machine guns to ferret with like wild beasts the sons of our1 farmers who had dared to think that they were not obliged to sacrifice their all for the cause of the Empire. Mr. Speaker, were I to enumerate all the misdeeds of this Government I should take up too much time and since I have promised to be brief I shall close my remarks by saying that it will give me great satisfaction to vote for the amendment of the leader of the Opposition.


Mr. DONALD NICHOLSON:: (Queen's, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, I have not been requested to speak and I do not know in what political character I am to be recognized, whether as a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Tory. But I want to speak to-nighc especially from the Tory standpoint. First of all I heartily join in the congratulations which have been extended to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who now ably 
leads the Government upon his elevation to the high position of Prime Minister. I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne on the excellent speeches which they made.
An hon. MEMBER-Louder.


Donald Nicholson: If my hon. friend will be patient I will speak in tones loud enough for him to hear. The speech of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) who is one of the first lieutenants, I presume, of the Opposition leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) interested me. The hon. gentleman stated that the Prime Minister was a Tory. I am glad of that. In my opinion the Tories have done a good deal for Canada. My hon. friend also stated that the Prime Minister was in favour of contributing men and money in order to carry on Canada's share in the war. The statement was heartily applauded by hon. gentlemen opposite, even by the small group of Progressives. If there is one thing of which we on this side cordially approve, it is standing by Great Britain when she is in trouble. The adoption of that policy by the Government accounts for the large majority which they obtained at the election in 1917.
The leader of the Opposition had the temerity to demand by what right the Government continues in office. My answer to that is that the Government continues to administer public affairs by virtue of the mandate of the people, a mandate such as enables my hon. friend himself to sit in this House for the County of Prince, for the balance of the present term of Parliament which ends in 1922. In the course of his speech, my hon. friend also referred to the elections of 1917 and stated that the men overseas were coerced into supporting the Government. That statement is my chief reason for rising to speak to-night.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I received ninety-five per cent of the votes of the young men who went to the front from my constituency and I feel that the statement of the hon. leader of the Opposition cruelly misrepresents them. I also wish to say that of that ninety-five per cent a large number were the sons of Liberals who had supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the fifteen years of his administration. I can further state that these young men at that time wrote home- to their parents to support the Union Government. It therefore ill becomes the leader of the Opposition to indulge in such aspersions. I am surprised that a young gentleman who

aspires to become the leader of a Government in Canada should misrepresent these young men who, without reward, valiantly went to the front and patiently stood the hardships of such a terrible campaign by alleging that they were coerced into casting their votes as they did.
Coerced! That is a very, improper word to my mind. How were they coerced? Did the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian troops threaten those young men to compel them to vote for the Union candidates? That is what my hon. friend would imply. And I notice, Sir, that his hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to-night repeated that slander, for it is nothing less than a slander on the free, independent young men who went from my county and who voted for me. Not only that, Sir, but the hon. gentleman comes down to Charlottetown and on a public platform states, by implication, that I have no right to represent my constituency, because his friend who was on the platform with him lost the seat by some wrongdoing on my part. As a matter of fact, so many men from Prince Edward Island went overseas that the Government was generous enough to send representatives from each party to conduct the polling, and I never heard from one of those representatives that there was any wrongdoing. I met hundreds of young men on their return from the front and I asked them the question: Were you influenced to vote for the Government candidates; were you threatened in any way in the event of your voting against the Government candidates? Not one answered in the affirmative. I have had hundreds of letters from young ' men who were ardent supporters of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier saying: Here, we knew it was a critical time, it looked as though we were going to be defeated, and we wanted help from home. It ill becomes the leader of the Opposition to stand up here and say that those young men were coerced, and I take it that when an appeal is made to the people they will resent that slander. I am sorry for him, because he is a young man and will, I presume, perhaps sometime hold a prominent position in the public life of Canada.
He also in his speech in Charlottetown proclaimed, to my mind, a political heresy. He stated that the hon. Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) had not sufficient majorities to show that they had the confidence of the people. Well, that is a most extraordinary statement. The hon. Minister of Public
Works had a 2,500 majority, and the hon. Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue had a 4,000 majority. What size majority does he want? I consider that they both had good substantial majorities on a straight clearcut issue.
I heard in this debate the hon. leader of the Opposition mention that the right hon. Prime Minister had stated at a meting in Truro that our friends on the other side were connected with the Bolsheviks. I was at that meeting, and I can affirm that I never heard a statement of that kind from the right hon. leader of the Government.
The election in Peterborough was a misunderstanding between our own friends. Mr. Burnham is a Conservative, and I am inclined to think that he was not treated right. As a matter of fact if he had been elected I am sure he would be standing on this side for what is right in the fiscal arrangement anyhow.
The right hon. leader of the Government made a tour of the West last fall, and the hon. leader of the Opposition also made a tour of the West. One of the latter's colleagues represents a riding which under the present fiscal system enjoys more protection than any other manufacturing centre in Canada. He did not tell his friends that in the West. What would those friends think of that? The same statement applies to the hon. members for Kent, Ont. (Mr. McCoig), for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan), for Joliette (Mr. Denis), and other hon. members. I should like to know if they would support the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MeMaster) without the protection which they enjoy.
Reference was made in this debate to the Canadian Mercantile Marine. Our hon. friends from the West have had their say, and our hon. friends from Quebec have had their say, so I think it is time that I said something on behalf of the Maritime Provinces.


Michael Clark: Go to it.


Donald Nicholson: Let me call the attention of the Government to the Pictou-Charlottetown-Magdalen Islands route. The Government should take this service over and build a suitable steamer to be operated in connection with the National Railways. There are some 8,000 people on the Magdalene Islands, hardy fishermen; yet the service now is not as good as it was forty years ago under the old Tory government. It is a crying shame that those people are so grossly neglected.

There should also be an additional boat for the Prince Edward Island route. I have it on the authority of the management of the Canadian National Railway system that they recognize the necessity for, and are in favour of providing an additional boat at an early date. My opinion is that the Government had better give a contract this year for the building of such a boat. The present boat is taken off the route for nearly two months each year, and the service provided is not satisfactory to our people. I know that some hon. gentlemen will state: We are used to that kind of talk from Prince Edward Island, and that province has cost the Dominion a large sum. Why, one of the hon. ministers is an absolute political paranoiac; he thinks that we have too good a boat service.
When Prince Edward joined the Canadian Federation in 1873 we were free from debt. Nearly fifty years ago we built a railroad-when you gentlemen in Saskatchewan were only in your swaddling clothes-at a cost of $3,400,000, and subsequently handed it over to the Dominion Government. One year after we entered Confederation Canada obtained an award of $5,500,000 from the United States, $1,000,000 of which was handed over to Newfoundland. I hope the Government will give heed to the earnest representations I have made with reference to the two steamers I have mentioned and gave a contract arranged for at an early day.
I want to say this with regard to the Magdalen Islands; the Magdalen Islands were settled before there was any settlement at all on the site of what is now the city of Winnipeg. The people there are fishermen, and they have not been treated properly by any Government of Canada.
I have made representations on their behalf; forty years ago I was a member of the delegation that came to Ottawa to make certain requests with regard to that matter. We .had a good old Tory government at that time, and they listened to our representations and subsequently put on a service, which was maintained for years. On account of the war and other considerations, there has not been in recent years as satisfactory a service as we ought to have for these people.
Let us indulge in a little retrospect, Mr. Speaker. The first Parliament of Canada under the Confederation was held in 1867. The total revenue of Canada at that time was $13,000,000. In 1878 it was $24,000,000; in 1896 it was $40,000,000; in 1910 it

was $140,000,000, under the administration of the late Liberal Government-it had come up very well. But, Sir, last year, 1920, the total revenue of Canada was $380,000,000. Besides Canadians subscribed to war bonds $1,500,000,000. In 1895 the total assets of the banks were $316,000 000; in 1919 they were $2,754,000,000. The question that we are now up against is the raising of $400,000,000 yearly for the carrying on of the country's affairs. What does that mean? It means that every man, woman and child in Canada .will have to contribute fifty dollars toward the running of the country. We have had a lot of talk during the last few weeks, but I have not heard anyone suggest how that money was going to be raised. It is a serious question, and one that ought to be actively taken up.
I notice that the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) is in his right	place-No	Man's Land. He
could not have been elected in Nova Scotia, so he is now in line with the Government of that province. I might say that in connection with the appropriation to aid the provinces in the building of roads, a contract was let by the Government of Nova Scotia under that highway scheme for St. Margaret's road and $280,000 was supposed to do the road work, but $780,000 was spent by the local government. Gentlemen down there say they are Liberals, but they are anything. That work cost the province $780,000-and that is characteristic of the history of Nova Scotia Liberalism.
The party on this side has adopted the name National Liberal and Conservative.
I do not care' about the name-it is too long. But I suggest that the name of the party opposite, judging from the speeches that have been made by some hon. gentlemen on that side, should be "Snatcher" instead of "Liberal," because they snatch at everything; they snatch at every policy imaginable.
The hon. senior member for Halifax opposed the Military Service Act. In his" opinion it was an awful Act. He was against the party in power-the Tory party at that time. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) had to get in with the Tory party then, and he renounces it now. Toryism, he says, is not for freedom-but it is to be remembered that the member for Halifax and other hon. gentlemen have been enabled to hold seats in the House by virtue of legislation passed by this Parliament. If they are consistent

they will do what has been done in Great Britain in cases of this kind. They call it the Chiltern Hundreds. If a gentleman disagrees with the policy of the Government over there he says: "I am not satisfied with the Government; I am going back to the people." But not one of the gentlemen opposite did that, and we on this side stand here defending the policy that was inaugurated for the benefit of Canada.
Now, I want to take hon. gentlemen back a little; and I can take you back further than some of you gentlemen think.
I will take you back to the days before the National Policy was inaugurated in this country, when the people of the lower provinces were leaving by the hundreds and thousands-and why? They were going to the New England States in order to obtain employment. Last year I heard, I think it was the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) say that there were at least 2,000,000 French Canadians in the United States. Does the same condition prevail now? No, they do not go to the United States to find employment. When our people went to the factories of New Hampshire and New England to obtain employment, what did they do there? They were manufacturing boots, caps, clocks, everything in the United States for use down in the lower provinces, and French Canadians and people from the lower provinces were migrating in thousands to the United States. The reason why they left this country was that they could not get employment in Halifax, Charlottetown or any other city in the lower provinces because goods were allowed to come in free from the United States. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite say: "Oh, let us have free trade." The hon. member for Red Deer says: "I believe in freedom;" but there is a freedom that is not right, and some kinds of freedom are very wrong. We want to protect our industries, and I am not quite satisfied with the Government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Nicholson: That is a little comfort to my hon. friends opposite. I maintain that the Government ought to impose a high enough rate of duty to prevent United States goods from coming in here as much as they do. At the present time, too many articles of United States manufacture are being imported into this country, and I would impose a higher duty. I claim that this Government made a mistake when they took $31,000,000 off customs duties. I would not have taken off a dollar.
Did they gain any support by their action? Not at all, and I contend that if they had taken off $150,000,000, they would not have gained any support. I ask my hon. friends to consider the situation in all seriousness. We have to raise $400,000,000 and the question is: How is that amount going to be raised? A prominent member of the Agrarian party suggested the imposition of a land tax; but when he got down into Ontario, Quebec and the lower provinces, he found that the people did not want that; that they wanted to preserve the fiscal policy that is at present in force. When the people of the lower provinces and the people of the West consider the situation, they will ask: "How are you going to raise the revenue?" At the present time we get $160,000,000 from customs, so much from excise duties and so much from income tax, and I hope more will be raised next year from the income tax. To take the duty only off agricultural implements would be selfish on the part of loyal Canadians, and if you take off the $100,000,000, give us your alternative and then we shall know where we are. I listened carefully to all hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate to find what alternative there was for raising the revenue that must be raised, but not a suggestion did I hear.
The other evening I listened with great interest to the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. Gauthier), who has weighed this matter carefully and who has been a responsible public man for a number of years. He cannot see eye to eye with the Opposition in their policy, with the "snatcher" party, the Liberal party. He boldly stands up here and takes his political life in his hands, acting in the interest of this country, and I am sorry to say that one of his former confreres designated him a traitor. The hon. gentleman who made that remark is a student of history, a great admirer of Liberalism. The great Gladstone, when he first came into public life, was recognized as the fond hope of the unbending Tories, and surely my hon. friends opposite will not say that he was a traitor. It is time to cut out that sort of thing, and I may say that I consider the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, in the stand that he took, was a Daniel; he stood alone; he "dared to be a Daniel," and I believe the people of his province will eventually realize that he has taken a proper course in that regard.
I do not want to speak with regard to any particular province at all; I am a Canadian; but I just want to say to hon. gentlemen
\

opposite that they have been playing the political baby and crying that the Tories have ben insulting them. I have been in this House for ten years, and I have never heard an hon. gentleman on this side use an improper word towards a French Canadian; that is, for political purposes. I might go further and tell something which has happened, but perhaps it is better to leave such matters alone. From the Atlantic to the Pacific we are, and should be, Canadians in our endeavour to build up this great country, and I regret it very much if in this chamber things have been said that should not have been said. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) in his recent speech, told us what the people of Saskatchewan had done in connection with the war, and I know that they have been loyal and good Canadians.
I have travelled in the West, and I do not fear but that there will be an overwhelming majority against the fiscal policy announced by the present Opposition. I have been in the constituency represented by the Secretary of State, the Hon. Mr. Sifton, and I know there are opportunities there for manufacturing that are not to be found in any other part of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the excessive prices paid for farm machinery. Why, you can make farm machinery right there; the rates are in your favour, and farm machinery will be made there some day. It is all very well for men to complain of hardships, but every province has hardships. The province of Nova Scotia has hardships. She has not enough protection.
I am sure my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) thinks we have not enough protection. Coal, for instance, is not protected nearly as much as it ought to be.
With hon. gentlemen opposite it is the same old story. They have one story for Nova Scotia, another for Saskatchewan, and another for Alberta.


William Duff: Who is that?


Donald Nicholson: The "Snatcher"
party. They have a different speech for every province. We on this side stand on solid ground. We stand by the policy of 1878, the National Policy that was inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald. There may be modifications in the tariff; I hope there will be, but that is the policy we stand by in every part of the country, and I am confident that when there is an election the party now in power will be returned on that policy. Hon. gentlemen may sneer 
at the Tory party, but I can tell them that if it were not for the Tory party they would not have a Winnipeg or a Calgary to-day. Hon. gentlemen may laugh at that, but I am old enough to remember the time when the Liberals bitterly opposed the building of a railroad out there. Everything that was done for the west was initiated by the Liberal-Conservative party of this country, although in saying that I do not wish to belittle what was done in the fifteen years of Liberal administration under the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Things went along those fifteen years until in 1911, he proposed a change in the fiscal policy of this country, and I think but for that he would have been returned to power.
I come from a farming county, the best county in Canada. We produce more mixed farm produce than any other county. We are not raisers of wheat, but we go in for mixed farming, and the farmers in our county work fifteen hours a day; there is no eight-hour day for them. I am pleased to say that we have in the home market the greatest market. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not like that, but it is true. The home market has done a lot for the people of this country. I have travelled from one end of Canada to the other, and know something about the conditions, and what the National Policy has done for us, and I know that the people in the Southern States of America would give a lot to have the privileges that we have, that is, a national policy of their own. I know there are a lot of Tories in the province of Quebec who think as I do on this question. In fact, they were the missionaries that started this propaganda for protection. They have benefitted by it, and they are ' not going to turn it down. I believe my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe, will have the backing of thousands of people who loyally supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because, as my hon. friend says he retained the old policy and protection.
' In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are all Canadians. Let us tolerate one another, and cut out all this sectarianism and everything of that sort. I am somewhat older than most of the members here and I say that my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) will regret making the speech he did to-night. It is a very improper speech to make to a mixed audience. However, he is young, and may learn. He may be a minister of the Crown some day but before that time comes he must moderate his views very considerably, and he must not think so badly of our

friends from Ontario as he does at the present time. I thank the members of this House and you Mr. Speaker for your patient hearing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps I should say before submitting the amendment to the amendment that it is a well recognized rule that an amendment must amend; in other words, it shall not be a negative of the motion sought to be amended. The authorities are quite clear that if the word "that" in the original motion is left, this leaves sufficient of such motion to make the amending motion technically in order. The amendment to the amendment as submitted, while perhaps technically in order, does not convey the meaning which undoubtedly the mover had in mind, inasmuch as if it were construed to apply to the first word "that" it would hardly be intelligent. It seems to me that under the circumstances it would be far wiser if it were understood that the motion had reference to the second "that" of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Campbell) negatived.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
(The list of Pairs is furnished by the Chief Whips.)
Messieurs
Loggie,
Borden,
McGregor,
Stewart (Lanark),
Crothers,
Richardson,
Hughes,
Rowell.
Maclean, A.K.
Clark (Red Deer), Maharg,
Kennedy (Glengarry ), Reid (McKenzie), Buchanan,
Knox,
Boivin.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House do on Monday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 4.35 a.m.
Georges Henri Boivin: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell). Had I not been so paired I would have followed my usual custom and voted for the amendment.


John Patrick Molloy: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Michael Clark: I was
paired with the right hon. member for Kings (Sir Robert Borden). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Archibald Maharg: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


John Flaws Reid: I was paired with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Andrew Knox: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Sir Sam Hughes). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY:: I was paired
with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Mclsaac) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General agreed to.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) it was ordered that the said Address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.

On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House do on Monday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

Friday, March 4, 1921.